MMM, both individuals and groups are often held responsible for the actions of their forbearers. If you run up a bunch of debt, then croak, your heirs would be burdened with that debt up to the sum of assets which they stand to inherit.

I haven't seen a convincing argument for how reparations would be a good move, but your argument against is piss.

To me, the strongest argument against is similar to the argument against simulation theory(the computing power needed would eclipse the amount of energy in the universe, or something along those lines); the bureaucracy to figure out who is deserving, and to what extent would not only be unreasonably expensive financially, but the shit it would stir up would be far more damaging to our society than the status quo.

Do light skinned people get more, because their black ancestors' relationship with the white ancestors were somewhere on the continuum from coercion to violent rape? Or maybe they should get less, because light skinned people have in many ways been more privileged. Or maybe they get less because they're part rapist.

Maybe worse yet, what happens if 5, 10, or 15 years on much of the money is gone and for any number of reasons black people are no better off. Then what? Is a check going to solve for ever deteriorating relationships between minority communities and police? Pay gaps? Education disparities? No, it's a mirage.

There's a debt that was never paid, but it's almost surely unwise to clear that debt monetarily at this point.