Enforcement of inherited property rights for wealth acquired via government endorsed racist crimes in the past creates wealth inertia that's often multi-generational and race-correlated. What's the least worst way to systemically differentiate that from institutional racism? What you say about capitalism is true in the ideal, but not with the legacy of things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_caetera.
i think there are several problems with the argument you're trying to make:
1. it assumes that this damage is both real and lasting. there is strong evidence that it is neither. africans of carribean decent in the US out earn whites. africans in the US out earn african africans. in 2020, would you rather be born a black man in the US or in congo or south africa?
2. it assumes that wealth is well preserved inter-generationally. at least in the US, this is not especially true and i think you'd be hard pressed to tie it to race.
3. it assumes that it CAN be remediated. attempts do do so, like the great society programs of kennedy and johnson did mote harm to the black community in the US that probably any other program in US history apart form actual slavery. they reversed nearly a century of serious progress and closure of the gap with whites in education, income, and wealth. it even broke the black family which had previously been the strongest family unit in the US. i suggest "losing ground" murray's excellent and well footnoted book on the topic.
4. it's arbitrary, coercive, and ill applied. nearly every piece of land on earth has been fought over and taken by one group or another from someone else dozens of time. who is to say which was "correct"? why is the prior iteration of ownership to this one any more valid that the one before it or the one before that? it's completely arbitrary. it's also coercive. it takes, by force, from some and gives to others. it holds all the same issues as conquest. a veneer of "democracy" does not remove that rotten core.
5. it's applied to those who did not do a thing to pay those who did not suffer from it. this taking the actions of the great-great grandfather and holding the child responsible and seeking to pay or preference someone whose own grandparents were not even born yet when it happened. can anyone find this to be any sort of sane or sound basis for policy?
6. "race correlated" is a meaningless term in assessing outcomes. races and cultures vary for lots of reasons and the presumption that variance in outcome is the result of racism is presumptive fallacy.
so, in short, i think you have no case here and that the "least worst" was to address any such issue as exists here (and it's not at all clear it does in the manner you suggest) is to do nothing. the free market doe not just fix this in theory, it fixes it in fact. this whole line of picketty style reasoning is just a set of nested fallacies and presumption erected into a massive straw man. as one of the few people who actually read his book end to end, i feel extremely confident in saying so. i suggest reading sowell and murray instead.
the way to eliminate the legacy of the past is to look forward, not drudge it up and mire people in it. many of my ancestors fled communist regimes that took everything from us. they escaped with the shirts on their backs and near penniless and this was an awful lot more recent than the events you're describing, so perhaps you'll forgive me if i am not buying into your narrative of victimization and entitlement for centuries old issues.
Pro sports is a perfect example of this: meritocracy combined with capitalism. 🤷♂️
You have a type on your title - should be bigotry, not bigoty. When I copy your link and post it on twitter, it still shows as bigoty
Enforcement of inherited property rights for wealth acquired via government endorsed racist crimes in the past creates wealth inertia that's often multi-generational and race-correlated. What's the least worst way to systemically differentiate that from institutional racism? What you say about capitalism is true in the ideal, but not with the legacy of things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_caetera.
i think there are several problems with the argument you're trying to make:
1. it assumes that this damage is both real and lasting. there is strong evidence that it is neither. africans of carribean decent in the US out earn whites. africans in the US out earn african africans. in 2020, would you rather be born a black man in the US or in congo or south africa?
2. it assumes that wealth is well preserved inter-generationally. at least in the US, this is not especially true and i think you'd be hard pressed to tie it to race.
3. it assumes that it CAN be remediated. attempts do do so, like the great society programs of kennedy and johnson did mote harm to the black community in the US that probably any other program in US history apart form actual slavery. they reversed nearly a century of serious progress and closure of the gap with whites in education, income, and wealth. it even broke the black family which had previously been the strongest family unit in the US. i suggest "losing ground" murray's excellent and well footnoted book on the topic.
4. it's arbitrary, coercive, and ill applied. nearly every piece of land on earth has been fought over and taken by one group or another from someone else dozens of time. who is to say which was "correct"? why is the prior iteration of ownership to this one any more valid that the one before it or the one before that? it's completely arbitrary. it's also coercive. it takes, by force, from some and gives to others. it holds all the same issues as conquest. a veneer of "democracy" does not remove that rotten core.
5. it's applied to those who did not do a thing to pay those who did not suffer from it. this taking the actions of the great-great grandfather and holding the child responsible and seeking to pay or preference someone whose own grandparents were not even born yet when it happened. can anyone find this to be any sort of sane or sound basis for policy?
6. "race correlated" is a meaningless term in assessing outcomes. races and cultures vary for lots of reasons and the presumption that variance in outcome is the result of racism is presumptive fallacy.
so, in short, i think you have no case here and that the "least worst" was to address any such issue as exists here (and it's not at all clear it does in the manner you suggest) is to do nothing. the free market doe not just fix this in theory, it fixes it in fact. this whole line of picketty style reasoning is just a set of nested fallacies and presumption erected into a massive straw man. as one of the few people who actually read his book end to end, i feel extremely confident in saying so. i suggest reading sowell and murray instead.
the way to eliminate the legacy of the past is to look forward, not drudge it up and mire people in it. many of my ancestors fled communist regimes that took everything from us. they escaped with the shirts on their backs and near penniless and this was an awful lot more recent than the events you're describing, so perhaps you'll forgive me if i am not buying into your narrative of victimization and entitlement for centuries old issues.
Thank you for another insightful piece. You are cummings and Sayek rolled into one.