Fait accompli: Your opinion?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Sure, data has been gleaned as a result of drafting persons to serve, but that data was not the goal of the drafting.

To me, there is only a matter of degree, not of kind. Intentions do not change nor mollify either means or results. You are correct that the intention of drafting someone into the military is not to derive medical results. However, the means is slavery and the resulting injury is a direct result of that slavery.

Having said that, I think that knowledge is important. Those who have received knowledge from illegitimate means should be punished severely and definitely should never be allowed to profit from that knowledge. However, once the knowledge is obtained, it would be a worse tragedy to fail to use that knowledge to save the life of another, innocent third party.

It's a very similar idea to what I think should be done with information obtained illegally in a criminal investigation by government officials. I think the information should be used in court, however, I think the government official that broke the law and/or violated the rights of another to obtain that information should face the exact same penalty as the person they were investigating, if they're found guilty in court of such a violation. And, the penalties for the person who illegaly obtained the information should be independent of the results of the trial for the person who's rights were violated.

So, torture is illegal, but if the risk is enough, someone might be willing to face the possibility of imprisonment or execution to use that illegal means to obtain information to save others. If the information isn't important enough to justify the government agent risking life in prison to obtain, then torture probably shouldn't be used.

It's not a good idea to fail to use knowledge, no matter its source. But, it's a very bad idea to allow someone to "get away" with violating the rights of others to obtain such knowledge and information.

And, to those who's parents or predecessors did the violations, it's too late now. Someone should have punished those people but we can't go punishing people who may have benefitted but did nothing wrong themselves.

Keith

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Praxius If the person in question is still alive, then you got that factor. Otherwise the descendants can got take a flying leap into a cactus and start their own dam lives.

The only problem with that is, it gives a government an easy out. A government could just take a hunker down and deny compensation until everyone has died who was harmed. Is there justice in letting a government get away with that?

Japan seems to be employing that now with issues from WW2, in which survivors of their brutality have been petitioning for redress for crimes committed against them, but the Japanese government keeps refusing to acknowledge the crimes. 20 years from now there will be no survivors, and then that government could then finally admit to the crimes, and then with your reasoning, declare that since the original survivors no longer exists, no compensation is due.

Is that justice? Do you just say suck it up to the children and grandchildren, even though their socio economic lot in life may be based on their immediate forfather`s tragedies at the hand of a not so distant past government? Does the government get a free pass for taking the hunker down and wait till all victims are dead policy?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Probably, but it's not like paying these compensations would be such a burden to the govt., it is our money, after all. That's the other thing, the Government is paying with our money, people who never did anything to these people. now we have to pay for what our forefathers did.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Probably, but it's not like paying these compensations would be such a burden to the govt., it is our money, after all. That's the other thing, the Government is paying with our money, people who never did anything to these people. now we have to pay for what our forefathers did.

Good point, however, those who find themselves at a marked disadvantage in society because of not so distant actions by one`s forefathers are paying with their lower status, aren`t they?

I think by letting governments have the "hunker down card until all victims are dead" card is the wrong message to send -- and just could embolden future crimes. For example, now the FBI is beginning to admit they overstepped the bounds of the Patriot Act, and what if 100 years from now, after 1000s of lives had been destroyed by it, the government admits that it was unconstitutional and should have never been passed to begin with, and that they do admit that many lives were negatively affected? But, what then if they say, since all those victims are dead, no redress is warranted? What about the children or grandchildren of those victims who may have had their lives turned upside down because some father or mother was ruined economically by the government action? Just tough luck?

Is our society so poor, miserly, and bereft of justice that we can`t make some compensation to them in some way -- at least to those who are 3rd or 4th generation from the victim and who have some kind of clear identifying links to the victim and present day circumstances?

I am not sure what that formula would be, and I do accept fait accompli, but I don`t think the litmus test for deciding who to compensate merely depends on them being the direct victim of the unjustice.

[Gods_Mercenary]

But finding out who was adversly affected would take more money and effort than paying everyone who could possibly be an inadvertant victim, which is not justice either, as you'll be paying people who shouldn't be getting it. Not to mention that if people just disappeared, then you have no proof that it was the gov. that did it.

And like I said, I didn't do it, I shouldn't be forced to pay for what I didn't do.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary And like I said, I didn't do it, I shouldn't be forced to pay for what I didn't do.

Consider it to be a generational subsidy. I don`t drink milk, but the government subsidizes farmers anyway with some of my taxes. But, that probably wouldn`t be agreeable to you either, if you are against subsidies (I am).

The difference here is that a crime has been declared to have been committed and acknowledged by our sensibilities. I guess you have to ask yourself if you paying a little extra, even if that is a little not fair, is a good price to pay for keeping the government from committing acts that could take away your whole freedom and livelihood. I think the deterrant looks like a good insurance policy.

[Kamehameha34]

How does filtering tax money through the government, to people that don't deserve it a deterrant to injustice?

Why should it matter if someone is born into a poor family, at the fault of the government? We have welfare, anyway.

If all men are created equal, why does it make a difference if one man is poor because his father was robbed by the government, and another is poor because his father was a poor businessman? You can't be born into a higher legal status than someone else, in America.

I don't think "I would have been born into a rich family" is a good excuse for government benefit. After all, they did nothing to earn what their relatives were robbed of.

[Gods_Mercenary]

As I said, the government is using someone else's money, it's no detterant at all. It'd be like me paying you for the window that I broke with someone else's money, where's the justice? especially considering that it's my father that broke it and your father's window, and they're both dead now.

None of this seems to have even an essence of justice.

[StrongHeartsWin]

So, I am asking you GM, and K, if a government takes a "hunker down and wait till all victims are dead" attitude in dealing with wrong deeds committed by them, then is that a viable policy option for them and other governments to emulate in the future, particularly if they get away with it? You don`t see that as being expensive, in as a threat to liberty, to future generations that may pay immensely with their intangible rights as opposed to monetary currency?

I do. Why don`t you?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Monetary compensation is not a detterant for the government! They are using our money, they might as well not be giving money at all. It is a threat to liberty, but monetary compensation does nothing. You have to fight the government if you want justice, not make it pay with money taken from somebody else.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Monetary compensation is not a detterant for the government! They are using our money, they might as well not be giving money at all. It is a threat to liberty, but monetary compensation does nothing. You have to fight the government if you want justice, not make it pay with money taken from somebody else.

I asked you a simple yes/no question above. I don`t mind if you qualify your yes/no answer, so long as you do give a yes/no answer. Though you did address the second question, the first was not answered.

Again: if a government takes a "hunker down and wait till all victims are dead" attitude in dealing with wrong deeds committed by them, then is that a viable policy option for them and other governments to emulate in the future, particularly if they get away with it?

And to add a question: if they are successful with that strategy purposely applied, do they get off scott free?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin So, I am asking you GM, and K, if a government takes a "hunker down and wait till all victims are dead" attitude in dealing with wrong deeds committed by them, then is that a viable policy option for them and other governments to emulate in the future, particularly if they get away with it? You don`t see that as being expensive, in as a threat to liberty, to future generations that may pay immensely with their intangible rights as opposed to monetary currency? I do. Why don`t you?

You shouldn't solve this by making the government pay money to undeserving parties.

Here's how I think it should work: A committee should meet to come up with a consensus, of how much money should be paid to the victims of the Japanese internment- Let's say they reach an amount of 250 million dollars.

This money would then be divided between all of the remaining survivors.

The amount set by the consensus board would only take into account the people who were affected by it - meaning, they wouldn't factor in deaths since the event.

If all of the victims are dead, then no money is paid. Why? Because the government that initiated the "hunker down" policy is different than the one today, as is the nature of democratic republics. They are operating with the tax money of people that had nothing to do with it, and those who were negatively affected don't exist any more.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I asked you a simple yes/no question above. I don`t mind if you qualify your yes/no answer, so long as you do give a yes/no answer. Though you did address the second question, the first was not answered. Again: if a government takes a "hunker down and wait till all victims are dead" attitude in dealing with wrong deeds committed by them, then is that a viable policy option for them and other governments to emulate in the future, particularly if they get away with it? And to add a question: if they are successful with that strategy purposely applied, do they get off scott free?

Will it work? then of course it is viable, if not particularly nice or justifiable. Like K said, in a democracy, the government is made up of compleely different people a decade or so down the road anyway, so having them apologise for what their political enemies did is silly. If the government is smart about it, then yes, they do get off free.