National Review Editorial Reasoning Against Slavery Reparations

A recent article published in the National Review by Graham Hillard convincingly argues that “Reparations Would Not Work and Would Go On Forever.”

He goes on to cite that:

…Since the money used to pay for them would have to be raised alongside “the taxes needed to finance [Democrats’] grandiose spending plans,” reparations would “totally wreck the economy,” sentencing Americans of all races to a future of “higher unemployment, slower wage growth, and less entrepreneurship.” Because potential awardees would have to prove their eligibility in some manner, reparations would “be an invitation to perpetual litigation” and would subject America to the spectacle of government officials deciding who counts as black. (Rachel Dolezal, your moment has come.)

In 2018’s oft-cited inequality tome The Divide, for example, anthropologist Jason Hickel obliterated all previous estimates by placing America’s debt to the descendants of slaves at a mind-boggling $97 trillion… Hickel (estimated a figure achieved by applying the U.S. minimum wage to every hour of forced labor performed between the years 1619 and 1865. Sensing enemies to her left, presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has argued that Native Americans and same-sex couples ought to be given money, as well.

Perhaps most convincing of the arguments (as if the above is not enough), Hillard argues that reparations would do little to actually act to end the debate and settle America’s debt for It’s wronges. He points out that to do so, “…one has to believe that the political apparatus currently pursuing reparations would simply cease to exist upon their being awarded. That no further expiation of the nation’s sins would be necessary.”

The piece is well worth the read.


Tell us what you think by replying below! (Note: If there is no box for reply’s, please click in the title above and box should appear.)

Tell us what you think!