This relates to the BBC article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states “the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries”.
The UK abolished slavery in 1833. That’s 190 years ago. So nobody alive today has a slave, and nobody alive today was a slave.
Dividing £18tn by the number of UK taxpayers (31.6m) gives £569 each. Why do I, who have never owned a slave, have to give £569 to someone who similarly is not a slave?
When I’ve paid my £569 is that the end of the matter forever or will it just open the floodgates of other similar claims?
Isn’t this just a country that isn’t doing too well, looking at the UK doing reasonably well (cost of living crisis excluded of course), and saying “oh there’s this historical thing that affects nobody alive today but you still have to give us trillions of Sterling”?
Shouldn’t payment of reparations be limited to those who still benefit from the slave trade today, and paid to those who still suffer from it?
(Please don’t flame me. This is NSQ. I genuinely don’t know why this is something I should have to pay. I agree slavery is terrible and condemn it in all its forms, and we were right to abolish it.)
Removed by mod
I can’t think of a single ethical framework that considers having someone else do your dirty work as permissible. If you have zero agency, sure. If you have nearly all the agency, like the colonial powers, no. The colonial powers threatened to topple governments that restricted slave trade, like the Kongo.
I’ve never said that it was a good or acceptable thing, im just very very opposed to the idea of reparations for such things.
Clearly. No matter the argument, you’re against reparations. That’s not because you have drawn a logical conclusion. You just believe it.
Removed by mod
What about historically economic debt?
This argument is based on the idea that buying ill-gotten water is equivalent to buying people