So when are you going to start deporting the descendents of European colonists of North America back to Europe? Or Asians back to Asia or Africans back to Africa? By your logic pretty much anyone who isn't First Nations or explicitly signed a treaty and is abiding with the spirit therein (which is to say no modern government) should have their assets seized and be kicked off the continent. Same with Australia for that matter or many areas in South America.
I see punishing an innocent party as a greater evil than trying to punish a corpse. So Yes I CAN let the thief get away with passing on his goods to his children. And yes it DOES matter very much if the thief can be identified. If it goes to the impound you're basically transferring ownership to the state. If the impound sells it then you are actually letting the state make a profit on the theft instead of letting the children keep it so there goes your moral high ground. If someone steals food to feed their children you aren't going to take the food from the children in order to punish the parent unless you're some kind of sadistic bastard psychopath. If the thief is dead then that's the end of the case as far as I'm concerned. You don't carry on and punish his kids.
"But I do see the similarities between teaparty type Libertarianism and Nazism so the concern is not lost on me." U.S. Tea Party types often strike me as too theocratic to be true libertarians. But Libertarianism has nothing in common with the fascism of the Nazis. The former is based on voluntary interaction, the latter is riddled with coercion and state control.
One moment you're talking about law and justice and the next you're saying that it doesn't matter the holocaust was legal. Seems the law only matters to you when it suits your philosophical position. I never said the law during the Nazi era was what should be the law. I said that it WAS the law and that even if you didn't have to worry about things like a statute of limitations expiring you couldn't prosecute someone under the law, at that time, for something that was legal. Your premise is to prosecute someone using current law for actions in the past that were legal under a different set of laws which is entirely nonsense. Now if you were going to try and prosecute someone today under current law that would make sense but trying to say that a Nazi's children should be prosecuted for something that was done all legal and proper at the time is complete bunk! No I'm not a fan of the law but I'm also not a fan of illogic and inconsistency.
"I think it is fair to say that nothing is legal under a dictatorship except its destruction by the most expedient but peaceable means available. "
Ah so I take it you think all classrooms should be democratized or something? Warren I think you'll soon find power concedes nothing.
Here we completely disagree. Property is the central issue. What you do with it is secondary and up to the individual.
I was speaking in your metaphor. But yes since they have not yet EARNED that power, that freedom. And to use your comment about the 5 year old with nukes that's precisely WHY people have to earn their power through trade and competition. To keep the 5 year olds armed with simple pocket knives until they can handle something stronger. The simple fact is that we live in a universe with limited resources which means in order to have higher quality of goods we need a meritocracy. That means competing for resources. So while everyone is equal in value and everyone has the same inherant rights and ability to choose they do not all have the same power afforded to them. I don't care if someone has more money than me so long as I'm free to utilize whatever resources I do have with my own discretion and am not subject to government regulations and artificial limitations.
Yes but if the thus are known and treating the populace badly the serfs may rise up with their torches and pitchforks and burn them at the stake which is what has happened in the past. That's why reputation is important. And clearly since we have overcome tyrants and economic monopolies before we know that they can in fact be overcome.
You started this post by proposing to use force by the state to punish the innocent for the crimes of their ancestors. You then went on to talk about prosecuting people in todays systems for their ancestor's legal actions. You then went on to suggest that ownership of property wasn't the core issue at all, which it is. If ownership of property isn't the core issue then what is it? How people feel? But that implies that ownership of property should be dictated on the collective moral compass than on individual rights of ownership. Which I totally disagree with, if you own something it's your right to do with what you will so long as you aren't hurting anyone. If you hurt someone THEN it becomes their business but not before. You then went on to say a dictator has no legal rights but should be eradicated using peaceful means. But our society is filled with dictatorships. But even so if you're facing a true dictator you don't try peaceful means you just shoot the bastard. And finally you think it's acceptable to use violence because not everyone has the same amount of power when you started this whole post criticizing theft which is utter hypocrosy!