Quote Originally Posted by DisruptorX View Post
He said that what is an "injustice" is subjective.
I disagree, but if that is true, the entirety of the law is subjective - how can we rely on it?

As for the other point, Ex post facto law is artibrary and tyrannical, the exact sort of thing a just system of laws is in place to prevent. If you were engaging in a perfectly legal activity today and then heavily penalized for it tomorrow when it was declared illegal, perhaps you would then see why it is not the basis for law. Being in favor of arbitrary government is...well....I don't know. I didn't think anyone is seriously in favor of that.
So if a country made a law saying that it was legal to murder members of a minority group, and you did so, and for whatever reason people realized how terrible that was, we shouldn't at least have you and other murders make restitution to the victim's families?

Quote Originally Posted by drone View Post
What business do you know of that keeps, say, 10-20 years of back pay for the workforce just lying around?
What kind of business do you know of that keeps slaves?

This solution would lead to these cases:
Worst case, outright murder of slaves before they get freed, just to keep from going bankrupt.
Slave owners were wonderful people, weren't they.

Financial ruin for just about any business that owned slaves, if they pay. Economic collapse in general.
Honest question, how much of business in America was dependent on slavery?

70 year head start to the KKK, throughout the entire country, with resentment towards African Americans lasting for a very long time.
So, we get a 70 year head start on the civil rights movement.

Less than 5 years after it's implementation, the Brits would come back and clean up the mess, and the country would be a failed experiment, footnote to history. It's completely unworkable.
A common enemy to unite against. Didn't the British offer freedom to slaves who fought for them in the War for Independence? Who knows, they might've been sympathetic.