Skip to main content

Reparations, Once Again

Human Rights Review volume 9, pages 379–392 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Reparations whether to blacks for slavery, or to Indians for land theft, or to settle any number of other conflicts, has 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 for reparations. 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, also, apply them to the issue of reparations, who are logically consistent.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are some who call the “unpleasantness” of 1861 a “civil war.” They are greatly mistaken. See on this Adams 2000; Block 2002a, b, unpublished; DiLorenzo 2006; Gordon 1998; Kreptul 2003; McGee 1994a, 1994b; Rothbard 1967.

  2. 2.

    Some might object that this constitute 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, 178; Simpson 1987). Just because slavery was legal under the laws of the U.S. 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. 3.

    There were a few black slaveholders.

  4. 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. 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. 6.

    For criticisms of Horowitz (2000), although from very different perspectives, see Arceneaux (2005), Block (2002).

  7. 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. 8.

    According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the total number of African Americans is approximately 34,000,000 and the total population of the U.S. is approximately 281,000,000. This is 12.1%. Similarly, the total population of slaves in the U.S. in 1860 was approximately 4,000,000 and the total population of the U.S. 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. 9.

    America 1993; Arceneaux 2005; Bittker 1972; Horowitz 2000, 2002; Robinson 1998, 2000, 2002; Westley 1998.

  10. 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 U.S. government of the time promised this sum to ex-slaves, it was never paid.

  11. 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. 12.

    “Ten Reasons for Reparations”, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, http://alternet.org/story/10680/.

  13. 13.

    This applies to the senior author of the present paper.

  14. 14.

    For the claim that, despicable though it was, slavery was run in a “businesslike” manner, see Fogel and Engerman (1974.)

  15. 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 fn. 2, supra.

  16. 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. 17.

    We assume this was a real bet, and not merely an attempt to hide resources. If the latter, see text, supra.

  18. 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

  1. Adams, Charles. 2000. When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Lanham, Mass.: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alston, Wilton. 2006a. “Where Have All the Black Libertarians Gone?” July 11. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/alston1.html.

  3. Alston, Wilton. 2006b. “The Black Libertarian’s FAQ.” July 25. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/alston2.html.

  4. America, Richard. 1993. Paying the Social Debt: What White America Owes Black America. New York, N.Y.: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barnett, Randy E. 1978. “Toward a Theory of Legal Naturalism,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, Summer, pp. 97–108.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bastiat, Frederic. 1962. The Law, New York: Foundation for Economic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bittker, Boris I. 1972. Reparations: The Case for Black Reparations. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Block, Walter. 6/10/02a. “A Libertarian Theory of Secession and Slavery,” http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block15.html.

  11. Block, Walter. 7/9/02b. “Secession,” http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block18.html; reprinted: http://www.secessionist.us/secessionist_no8.htm; http://www.southernnationalist.org/secession_block.htm.

  12. Block, Walter. 2002. “On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery,” Human Rights Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, July–September, pp. 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Block, Walter and Guillermo Yeatts. 1999–2000. “The Economics and Ethics of Land Reform: A Critique of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s ‘Toward a Better Distribution of Land: The Challenge of Agrarian Reform,’” Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 37–69.

    Google Scholar 

  14. DiLorenzo, Thomas. 2006. “Happy Secession Day.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo103.html.

  15. Fogel, Robert W., and Engerman, Stanley L. 1974. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gordon, David, ed. 1998. Secession, State and Liberty New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1993. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy, Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

  20. Horowitz, David. 2002. Uncivil Wars: The Controversy over Reparations for Slavery. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hutchinson, Earl Ofari. 2001. “Ten Reasons Why Reparations” http://alternet.org/story/10680/.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. Paul, Ellen Frankel. 1987. Property Rights and Eminent Domain. Transaction Publisher.

  28. Robinson, Randall. 1998. Defending the Spirit: A Black Life in America. Middlesex, England: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Robinson, Randall. 2000. The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks. New York, N.Y.: Dutton;.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Robinson, Randall. 2002. The Reckoning. Middlesex, England: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rothbard, Murray N. 1967. “The Principle of Secession Defended.” Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph (Pine Tree Column), October 3.

  32. Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp.

  33. Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982] The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp.

  34. Rozeff, Michael S. 2005. “Original Appropriation and Its Critics.” September 1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff18.html.

  35. Simpson. A.W.B. 1987. “The common law & legal theory” & “The survival of the common law system,” Legal Theory & Legal History, Hambledon Press.

  36. Westley, Robert. 1998. “Many billions gone: is it time to reconsider the case for black reparations?,” 40 Boston College Law Review 429–476.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Private Scholar, 177 Tioga Drive, Rochester, NY, 14616, USA

    Wilton D. Alston

  2. College of Business Administration, Loyola University New Orleans, 6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller 318, New Orleans, LA, 70118, USA

    Walter E. Block

Authors
  1. Wilton D. Alston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Walter E. Block
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wilton D. Alston.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alston, W.D., Block, W.E. Reparations, Once Again. Hum Rights Rev 9, 379–392 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-007-0055-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dispute Resolution
  • Black People
  • Slave Owner
  • Legal Positivist
  • Rightful Owner