Isabelle Brown

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@ForAClass342 @LilPoobs @Lawrenc51239184 I think this is a really good starting point. I also feel like simply asking people sincerely what they need/want to benefit their communities would be reasonable. And I bet, in many cases, that would not involve writing a check. Band-aid over a bullet wound. #pp22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@brithevibe @Lawrenc51239184 I was thinking about this too. I firmly believe there shouldn't be an expiration date on justice, however I see the benefit of policies like these for the sake of efficiency/efficacy. #pp22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@Lawrenc51239184 ...day in a variety of meaningful ways then reparations may be due. If anything it should be taken on a case by case basis. #pp22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@Lawrenc51239184 Agreed! I also really despise the "where do we draw the lin?" rhetoric. The answer: somewhere. We don't just give up entirely because it might prove to be a slippery slope? Perhaps if you can prove the ramifications of a historical event are still affecting you to this... #pp22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@JD_bees And perhaps it doesn't necessarily have to be monetary, might be better to poll those aftected on what they need/want, as opposed to just throwing money at them - that, I could see, could be construed as "blood money." #pp22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@JD_bees Reparations seem to speak to a very basic principle, this was mentioned at some point I think, of simply recognizing and trying one's best to right a past wrong, no matter how long ago it occurred. Basic? And yet it gets people really up in arms, on both sides. #pp22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@STONKS_STONK420 @cadwaladr4ever I like this analogy a lot. If nobody takes too much, we'll always have enough. I think this can be applied to most resources. If only it were the reality/if it were possible for any entity to allocate resources fairly amongst everyone. #PP22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@abmercha Human being are shallow indeed. If only a pattern of redistribution could be based on moral merit, lol. Although I do think history must be taken into account. The issue then becomes, as we've discussed in class, how extensive the undertaking of actually ~doing~ history is. #pp22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

"People want their society to be and to look just." (158) I think this sentence is really weird, as well as the "look of justice" comment that follows. Why make the distinction? #pp22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

I like Nozick's ultimate conclusion about redistributive justice: the voluntary actions of individuals over time will always undermine it. There's little sense in the State having to constantly recitify this. #pp22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

I think the Wilt Chamberlain example that Nozick asserts is very strong. He's right - nobody can complain on grounds of injustice, they would be contradicting themselves. This simple example is very easily transferable to other, real-world situations. #pp22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@NicoleB2017 Definitely, pretty radical stuff. He claims that the subjects of absolute monarchs might as well be slaves. And that they're invariably awful. And then he's just like..."read history." Proofs in the pudding, he's not wrong, lol #PP22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@NicoleB2017 @suhaanoor (criminals, rather)...For Locke, it would be barbaric NOT to do so, and to let wrongdoers go unpunished, which is one of the main things that he thinks sucks about the S of N. I like the very basic notion of fairness that forms the groundwork for Locke's beliefs. #PP22

[Isabelle Brown @Isabell70895241]

@NicoleB2017 @suhaanoor That being said, Locke is not a proponent of vigilante justice the way Hobbes is. He puts that in the hands of the State alone. Systems over chaos. Locke screams "death penalty" in that sense. For some, it's downright barbaric that we let the State kill certain people...#PP22