Since I oppose the OP’s proposal, I’ll offer my own (also a pipe dream, but a bit closer to reality than the OP, IMO): guaranteed income for all in the form of a negative income ‘tax’ at the lowest brackets, paid for with increased higher-bracket rates and a national sales tax. This income would only allow for bare-bones living – rent, basic clothing, and food… but I think it would go a long, long way into providing true opportunity for all. If you don’t have to worry about paying for the basics, suddenly you can actually take the risks that might be necessary for escaping poverty.
I quite like the OP’s proposal.
As a resident in a 3rd world African country, I’m all for a large influx of well educated people to come in and grow our economy. Especially if each gets median wage for the city in which they settle, from the US govt! Thats, like… your taxes paying for MY benefits!
The fact that they will be black… well, this is Africa, I doubt that’s a problem. But OP seems to have some sort of wierd problem with being (?) black.
iiandyiii, I fear that blacks suffer from the same disease as the rest of us: pay us whether or not we work, and most of us will sorta let the work ethic slide.
There are just way too many things that come in front of working for others.
scudsucker, it’s highly unlikely that blacks will move back to africa within the OP’s proposal. Aside from the fact that life generally sucks in african countries in comparison with the US (look at which way net emigration is going now), I believe you only get paid according to the median income of the city to which you bail. Only an idiot would pick a city in an african country under that deal.
You gotta go to a place like Basel or something. But of course, they hardly meet the OP’s criterion that the recipient city be one which “appreciates” black (or any other) immigrants…
Some people might work a bit less. That’s not always a bad thing. Others will take risks and do things they’ve always wanted to do, but have been unable. That’s usually a good thing.
Your southern ancestors committed open treason against the government of the United States, meeting even the specific definition of treason laid out in the Constitution. Tell you what, let’s take the fact that they weren’t tried, convicted, hung from the neck until dead and their property, both real and human seized by the government and the fact that the very small percentage of southern ancestors who were plantation owners couldn’t each call hundreds or thousands of other human beings their property anymore and say they got off lightly, okay?
For the sake of discussion:
What of Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland? Their slaveowners lost their slaves, but the men of those states committed no treason, and indeed fought bravely for the Union cause.
My family gave up lives and limbs, and the veteran’s benefits and survivor benefits were a bit lacking. So while we are printing up money to give away, we have a few lives and limbs to get paid for as well.
Morally, they deserved death for owning slaves, though I understand that it would have been politically untenable to hold them and all other slaveowners morally culpable for their crimes.
Well, they’re all dead now, so it is a moot question.
Regards,
Shodan
Have you been to the Dope lately? Moot questions are kind of a thing, here, ya know 
For the sake of discussion, they kept their slaves for the duration of the Civil War and only lost them as a result of the 13th Amendment, so they can’t claim to have been denied due process of law. The only argument that can be made that southern plantation owners were deprived of their property without compensation is on the grounds that the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional and thus they were ‘deprived’ from the time frame between the EP and the passage of the 13th Amendment which is a spurious argument in any event; the EP declared slaves held in territory in rebellion to be de jure free, de facto they remained slaves precisely because it only applied to where the government did not exercise effective authority.
In a larger sense though, Clothahump’s ‘woe the plight of the poor southern plantation owners’ argument is not only in exceedingly poor taste, it’s entirely devoid of reason. You don’t get to start a war and then cry about the outcome demanding compensation for your treason. It’s the same mindset that insists Lincoln started The War of Northern Aggression.
Not to mention practically untenable to hold all naughty peoples culpable for their crimes. (At least, what we Westerners have now decided in modern society are moral crimes.) Half of africa would be executed along with half of the rest of the world.
But until Honesty hobbles back to defend this incredibly stupid idea, I guess I’m outta here too. I can’t remember a GD where not a single poster agreed with the OP. Maybe that’s why he bailed.
Can I tell you how truly awesome it is that people are whining over losing the opportunity to legally kidnap, rob, and rape other people. That is amazing.
Some good may yet come of Honesty’s misbegotten thread.
Well, the only reason this is an issue at all is because the US established and maintained a rigid color line.
The African slave descended population of Mexico, by contrast, largely disappeared through intermarriage generations ago. So, there is neither a substantial black presence nor any kind of historical grievance movement to speak of.
These are subjective opinions, of course, but to my way of thinking, only those who murder deserve death.
That’s perfectly sensible, as the 13th Amendment would satisfy the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, and since the “property” wasn’t taken for public use, compensation wasn’t owed (though I’m sure it would have been appreciated by the loyalist slaveholders…then again, the country was pretty well broke at the time).
I agree, though I suspect it was a gentle tweaking of Honesty’s position, and not a serious argument.
Thanks for the thoughtful answers.
Morally, what do you think slave-owners deserved? I believe slavery is second only to genocide on the scale of crimes against humanity, so I hold that slavers and slave-owners are (and were) enemies of humanity, even if they weren’t recognized as such.
I understand this is mostly just a thought-exercise.
In purely moral terms (thus setting aside the problem that slavery was legal, and punishing people for legal acts is itself morally wrong)…a lengthy term of confinement in prison, and/or the forfeiture of all assets to as to provide for the welfare of former slaves, depending on the nature of the slave-owner (none were morally good, obviously, but some were better than others). Of course, slave-owners who indulged in rape and murder of their slaves would have to face judgment for those crimes as well, separate from their slave-holding.
Slavery is indeed horrible, but it can be corrected, and the victims can recover. The only wrong that can never be put right is one that ends in death, so handing out death for anything but that is morally unacceptable (to me, naturally).
I think slavery is still pretty common in many parts of contemporary africa, with estimates of the currently enslaved reaching over 600,000. Maybe (as a thought experiment?) we could try instituting the death penalty now for slavers and see if it helps.
I’m not a big fan of the death penalty, but only because of the possibility of mistakes being made. I have no moral quibbles with executing slavers and slave-owners, as long as long as they are actually guilty.
Half of the World/Africa are guilty of executable crimes?