In order to understand how to argue against leftist sophistry, it is recommended to read this comic in order to lay the context for a response:
Give the conditions of these children, do Richard’s parents lack a right to give him resources and an education? They have a duty to provide for their child according to I Timothy 5:8.
Since Richard is better off than Paula, what is a Christian’s moral duty? According to privilege ethics, the Richards of the world should redistribute their money to the Paula’s of the world.
The same argument can be made between Paula and a starving child in the jungle. If Richard is supposed to help Paula and redistribute his wealth, then Paula should redistribute her money to someone even poorer. This keeps going until all of the resources are shared between every human on earth. Paula ends up being poor again, because she can no longer accumulate property. She instantly redistributes it to someone poorer in order to fulfill her duty to social justice.
This comic ignores the fact that Richard’s parents have a right to do as they please with their money, which they could have inherited from their parents, who also inherited it from their parents, who also inherited it from their parents, who would have earned it by working at some point. One would have to believe that Richard’s parents can only spend their money to help poor people. One would have to believe that Richard’s parents should be holier than Jesus in Mark 14:7 and Matthew 26:11.
The reason why Paula is poor, is because someone did not accumulate wealth for the Paula dynasty in her family tree. There is no reason why Richard should suffer the consequences of her ancestors’ decisions.
Let’s just say that Richard’s family stole their money from Paula’s family in the distant past, and that is why his family is rich and hers is poor. This could be property or labor.
If Paula insists on reparations from Richard, then Paula needs to give back whatever stolen things her family enjoys that they deprived another dynasty from having. If a single person in her family tree stole property or labor from another person, then Paula needs to work for the ancient victim’s descendants the same way she accuses Richard of owning stolen goods.
If Richard has to give to Paula because his ancestor stole something from Paula’s ancestor 200 years ago, then Paula needs to give back the equivalent cost of her family’s thefts within the last 200 years. She owes it to the victimized dynasties as a beneficiary of criminals. After all, she believes that 200 years is not long enough for stolen property to transfer ownership.
Social justice borders on absurdity with its claims. It wants guilt to transfer across generations in a way that no human being can possibly rectify. The irony is that its adherents lack the self-awareness to set an example and start making the long reparations themselves.
“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”