Abstract
Reparations, whether to blacks for slavery, or to Indians for land theft, or to settle any number of other conflicts, have an interesting political background. Analysts on the left, who are usually no friend of private property rights, nevertheless rely on this doctrine to support their case. Those on the right, in contrast, who supposedly defend the institution of property rights, jettison them when it comes to reparations. It is only libertarians, such as the present authors, who both favor private property rights in general, and apply them to the issue of reparations, who are logically consistent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Some might object that this constitutes ex post facto law. We support such law. We are not legal positivists (for a critique of this obnoxious doctrine, see Barnett, 1978; Groudine, 1980; Rothbard, 1998 [1982], 178; Simpson, 1987). Just because slavery was legal under the laws of the United States does not mean this conformed to a higher law, libertarian law, according to which it is impermissible for one person to forcibly enslave another. The case against ex post facto law is a weak one. Indeed, the Nuremberg Trials were based on a denial of the validity of this type of law.
- 3.
There were a few black slaveholders.
- 4.
However, it would be entirely justified to seize the wealth improperly bequeathed to the heirs of the specific government officials responsible for slavery—the politicians and bureaucrats—and return these to the (black) heirs of the slaves.
- 5.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson has also answered (see: http://alternet.org/story/10680/) David Horowitz directly, although his analysis rests upon the type of statist premises that run counter to libertarian law.
- 6.
- 7.
However, after reading Twelve Years a Slave, by Northup (1997), we were so incensed that we could easily empathize with those blacks who wanted to go out and extract a little personal repayment for themselves.
- 8.
According to the 2000 US Census, the total number of African Americans is approximately 34,000,000 and the total population of the United States is approximately 281,000,000. This is 12.1%. Similarly, the total population of slaves in the United States in 1860 was approximately 4,000,000 and the total population of the United States was approximately 31,000,000, which is 12.7%. It seems clear that the 31,000,000 today are not all descended from the 4,000,000 from history. In other words, simply following the chain of familial connection, as the authors suggest, will account for all who are due payment.
- 9.
- 10.
The “40 acres and a mule” in our view was a rough approximation of what each slave would have been entitled to, on average, in 1865, under the libertarian legal code. Further, historical references speak directly to freed slaves being granted this sum as “payment” for their (immoral) incarceration. Ironically, although the US government of the time promised this sum to ex-slaves, it was never paid.
- 11.
Here, we explicitly adopt the default position that, unless matters can be shown otherwise, the natural progression is for parents to make their children their heirs.
- 12.
“Ten Reasons for Reparations,” Earl Ofari Hutchinson (2001), http://alternet.org/story/10680/.
- 13.
This applies to the senior author of this chapter.
- 14.
For the claim that, despicable though it was, slavery was run in a “business-like” manner, see Fogel and Engerman (1974).
- 15.
It is only a legal positivist who would equate government edicts with proper law. It is the task of the legislature to discern or discover just law. The obverse is simply not true, that whatever the legislators decree magically turns into proper law. See footnote 2, supra.
- 16.
An unusually active, able, and insightful referee of This Journal posed this challenge to us. We are delighted to respond to these eminently sensible calls for clarification. Indeed, we mentally kick ourselves for not having anticipated him in this regard. Well, better late than never.
- 17.
We assume this was a real bet, and not merely an attempt to hide resources. If the latter, see text, supra.
- 18.
It may be worth noting here that we use as our “precedent” the normal proceedings of today’s small claims court. It is quite possible to obtain a decision in favor of a plaintiff against a defendant who is unable to pay. In that case, the plaintiff is simply “out of luck,” and the same would be true for our slave descendants above. In effect they can “win” and still not be paid if the defendant is insolvent.
References
Adams, Charles. 2000. When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
America, Richard. 1993. Paying the Social Debt: What White America Owes Black America. New York, NY: Praeger.
Arceneaux, Taniecea. 2005. “Reparations for Slavery: A Cause for Reparations, A Case Against David Horowitz,” The Review of Black Political Economy, Vol. 32, No. 3–4, Winter–Spring, pp. 141–148.
Barnett, Randy E. 1978. “Toward a Theory of Legal Naturalism,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, Summer, pp. 97–108.
Bastiat, Frederic. 1962. The Law, New York: Foundation for Economic Education.
Bittker, Boris I. 1972. Reparations: The Case for Black Reparations. Boston: Beacon Press.
Block, Walter. 1990. “Earning Happiness Through Homesteading Unowned Land: A Comment on ‘Buying Misery with Federal Land’ by Richard Stroup,” Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, Summer, pp. 237–253.
Block, Walter. 6/10/2002a. “A Libertarian Theory of Secession and Slavery,” http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block15.html.
Block, Walter. 7/9/2002b. “Secession,” http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block18.html; reprinted: http://www.secessionist.us/secessionist_no8.htm; http://www.southernnationalist.org/secession_block.htm.
Block, Walter. 2002. “On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery,” Human Rights Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, July–September, pp. 53–73.
DiLorenzo, Thomas. 2006. “Happy Secession Day.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo103.html.
Fogel, Robert W., and Engerman, Stanley L. 1974. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gordon, David, ed. 1998. Secession, State and Liberty. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Groudine, Candace J. 1980. “Authority: H.L.A. Hart and the Problem with Legal Positivism,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IV, No. 3, Summer, pp. 273–288.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1993. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy, Boston: Kluwer.
Horowitz, David. 2000. “The latest civil rights disaster: Ten reasons why reparations for slavery are a bad idea for black people – and racist too.” http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/2000/05/30/reparations/index.html.
Horowitz, David. 2002. Uncivil Wars: The Controversy over Reparations for Slavery. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.
Hutchinson, Earl Ofari. 2001. “Ten Reasons Why Reparations,” http://alternet.org/story/10680/.
Kreptul, Andrei. 2003. “The Constitutional Right of Secession in Political Theory and History.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, Fall, pp. 30–100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/17_4/17_4_3.pdf.
Locke, John. 1948. An Essay Concerning the True Origin, Extent and End of Civil Government, in E. Barker, ed., Social Contract, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 17–18.
McGee, Robert W. 1994a. “Secession Reconsidered,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, Fall, pp. 11–33; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_2.pdf.
McGee, Robert W. 1994b. “Secession as a Tool for Limiting the Growth of State and Municipal Government and Making it More Responsive: A Constitutional Proposal.” Western State University Law Review, 21. Spring.
Northup, Solomon. 1997. Twelve Years a Slave, Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, http://docsouth.unc.edu/northup/northup.html.
Paul, Ellen Frankel. 1987. Property Rights and Eminent Domain. Transaction Publisher.
Robinson, Randall. 1998. Defending the Spirit: A Black Life in America. Middlesex, England: Penguin.
Robinson, Randall. 2000. The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks. New York, NY: Dutton.
Robinson, Randall. 2002. The Reckoning. Middlesex, England: Penguin.
Rothbard, Murray N. 1967. “The Principle of Secession Defended.” Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph (Pine Tree Column), October 3.
Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty. New York: Macmillan; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp.
Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982] The Ethics of Liberty. New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp.
Rozeff, Michael S. 2005. “Original Appropriation and Its Critics.” September 1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff18.html.
Simpson, A.W.B. 1987. “The Common Law & Legal Theory” & “The Survival of the Common Law System,” Legal Theory & Legal History, Hambledon Press.
Westley, Robert. 1998. “Many Billions Gone: Is It Time to Reconsider the Case for Black Reparations?,” 40 Boston College Law Review 429–476.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Block, W.E. (2019). Reparations, Once Again. In: Property Rights. Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28353-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28353-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28352-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28353-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)