Originally Posted by
Mugwump
Of course there is. Libertarians have an irresponsible fantasy that everything is or ought to be some kind of voluntary contract, but no society works according to that principle, or ever has, or ever will. Easy examples: If a major hurricane devastates New Orleans or Miami, is there a collective obligation on the part of the rest of the country to aid the survivors and rebuild? Absolutely. If some part of the population is unable to afford food to feed themselves and their families, is there a collective obligation of society to help? Sure. No sensible person disputes any of that.
I think the argument is a little more sophisticated than that, but that's not what Kamala Harris is proposing. She's talking about wrongs that occurred since WW2. If you don't think those are legitimate, then do you also think it's not legitimate for people to still be tracking down art and other valuables stolen by the Nazis and trying to restore it to the families of those from whom is was stolen? After all, that was even earlier.
As with the other guy, these arguments and objections seem almost deliberately dumb and naive. The underlying idea really isn't all that hard: if some subgroup within society is in a bad spot as a result of past injustices visited on that group in the past by society/the government as a whole, then society owes it to the group to make it right in some way. This doesn't necessarily mean a cash payout to all individuals.
It's not ridiculous. It's perfectly sensible. In the 18th and 19th centuries we--no, not you or me or the Cub, but the US--slaughtered the Indians and took all their land and herded them onto reservations and destroyed their way of life. Now we (again, US society as a whole) owe something to their descendants who are still living with the aftermath of all that. A lot of people, most people, I would say, don't have a problem with such an idea, but many of the same folks get really twisted when it comes to applying the same reasoning to black people. Seems like plain old racism to me, but I suppose there are other possible explanations.
I think I already replied to the "If you feel bad about it, pay for it yourself and leave me alone" response above. It's dumb at best, dishonest at worst. "You've got no claim on MY money!" That's stupid. It's not about my claim on your money, it's about whether there's a legitimate claim by an aggrieved group on society as a whole. You might not think there is, but if not, then argue on that basis. Don't try to cast the issue as if it's about me or some evil liberals wanting your money or wanting to oppress you or any of that libertarian horse manure. Any government initiative you guys don't like always gets depicted as if the whole point is to deliberately oppress you personally. Get a grip. It's not about you. Argue the case on its merits, not on what you imagine are the evil motivations of people you disagree with.
And for the same reason, I weary of those defensive "you feel guilty and you want me to feel guilty, too, but I don't!" lines. I don't feel personally guilty about slavery or Jim Crow having happened in the past, or about the Indians being mostly exterminated. I do feel that there's a wider social responsibility to redress wrongs and lift up people in society who are less fortunate.