[JasonC]

Yes, you are trying to be snide, and you are a commie radical good fer nothing. But I can answer regardless. Illegal acts, which are not the acts your ideology doesn't approve of nor the things you decide you didn't like 70 years later, but acts illegal at the time, are covered by the perpetrator of the act himself being involved in them. Anyone who isn't, has no part in that fault, which attaches to a human individual and not to wealth or any other material object. A man entirely innocent of any illegal act himself, who owns property he acquired without doing anything wrong, cannot be deprived of it based on allegations about misdeeds of others. If the others are still around, fine go after them. If they are dust, then your cause is gone with them. That is what "prescription" means. It means a man innocent of wrong himself cannot be punished for the alleged misdeeds of his ancestors.

And yes, that means modern Stalinish witch hunts by ambulance chasing lawyers are theft. Every bit as bad as the original acts they pretend to be so hot and bothered about. No, they aren't made any more excusable by the innocent men they attack, being in different demographic groups than those they claim to speak for.

In a walnutshell, the sort of men suing for Holocaust reparations would have been the first to burn the Jews themselves for a few gold fillings, and are pond scum.

[Sherman Logan]

By your standard, to be a tad hyperbolic, if a guy robs a bank and then dies in a shootout with the cops while in possession of the loot, his heirs and assigns have an unquestionable moral right to the possession of that loot and any income they derive from using it as capital.

You know, you come across as a bit of a nut. You make some good points, but if you were less free about calling others commies your points might get more respect.

When you start calling others names rather than showing logically why they are wrong, you weaken your own case more than that of your opponent.