The (Libertarian) Case for Reparations

In his piece “The Case for Reparations,” Ta-Nehisi Coates details the ways in which white supremacy and racism have had a lasting impact on black communities. As the title of the article suggests, Coates argues that the best way to right the terrible wrongs that have been done to African-Americans is through reparations.

While no one can deny that Coates is correct about the impact of racism, his proposed solution seems less sound. Reparations would be a logistical nightmare. How much money should be given? How should it be spent? Who should contribute to the fund? Each of those questions requires countless hours of debate and research. But before they can even be answered, a more basic question must be addressed: are reparations an acceptable solution? To many on the right, reparations appear to be righting one wrong with another wrong, attempting to fix the thefts of the past with thefts in the present. No matter how reparations were ultimately executed, they would have to involve taking money from people who played no role in the harm done to African-Americans – taking money from people who it is generally agreed earned their money legitimately.

This view is a powerful one, in large part because it appeals to the fundamental dislike for taxation common among those on the right. Conservatives generally see taxes as detrimental to economic growth. The libertarian political theorist Robert Nozick argued that taxes were the same as slavery: “Taxation of earnings from labor is on par with forced labor … taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose.” While the modern right may not go quite this far, there is certainly a feeling that taxation is similar to theft and therefore should be avoided.

It would thus appear that the only way to get Republicans and Libertarians on board with Coates’ plan for reparations is to change their fundamental way of thinking about taxes and redistribution. However, Nozick provides a way for those on the right to maintain their ideals about taxation and redistribution but still support reparation through his principle of rectification. Part of the reason that redistribution is wrong is that it deprives someone of a good that they have a right to – if someone makes money, they have a right to that money. Someone does not even have to “deserve” a good: Republicans argue vehemently that inheritance should not be taxed as well. In essence, as long as someone gains ownership of a good legitimately, they are entitled to that good.

But what if the good is gained illegitimately? In Nozick’s view, if a good is gained through theft, enslavement, or other means, it is not obtained legitimately. When looked at through this lens, reparations can suddenly seem plausible to even the staunchest libertarians. A thief would not be entitled to a good, so he should not be allowed to keep it. The artwork that the Nazis stole from the Jews is not considered to belong to the SS officer who stole it; it is not his to pass down to his family. It is impossible to deny that at least some of what white America owns was not gained legitimately. Beyond just slavery, black Americans were barred from owning homes in certain neighborhoods through the “red-lining” process that Coates outlines in his article. Clearly, then, some amount of rectification is needed.

Interestingly, Nozick’s description of how his principle of rectification would work in real life is extraordinarily similar to what Coates desires. It bears a striking resemblance to what John Conyers hopes to accomplish with HR 40. Nozick suggests using subjective information to approximate what would have happened if not for the past injustice and then instituting redistribution based on that: “If the actual description of holdings turns out not to be one of the descriptions yielded by the principle [of rectification], then one of the descriptions yielded must be recognized.” There is no doubt that the current situation of African-Americans in this country is not what it would have been if not for racism; thus, it follows from this argument that reparations are justified.

It should be noted that, while this argument does justify reparations on some level, it does not constitute an endorsement of them. After perusing this argument, one still might think that reparations are simply not the best way to atone for the sins of the past. Furthermore, this argument still does not answer any logistical questions about reparations, most importantly who should pay them. But it is clear that there is a strong right-wing argument for them.