Should governments pay reparations for historical injustices?

A case for

A government should not pay reparations for historical injustices, as the primary directive of a government is to maintain order and safety for their governed, not take the moral high ground. Sometimes, governments will be required to make unpopular, and potentially unethical decisions to avoid a worse outcome, and the average citizen, those who would receive reparations (or other countries as well) may not understand the historical context or the necessity which compelled them to make said decision. The most common demand for reparations is in America, with many african american individuals demanding reperations for the generational wealth disadvantage they have inherited because of their ancestors enslavement. However, this is sort of a red herring, the true reason: discontent with white people being more wealthy than them. Firstly, this ignores the fact that many slave owners were black (roughly .5%, or around 4000%), that slaves were obtained by black tribesmen in africa selling their brothers in exchange for guns to slave traders, that there is no shortage of white persons who were indentured servants, aka slaves. This also assumes that the average white inherits significant generational wealth, which is not true, except for perhaps the area one in born in. Also, this ignores the presence of equally disadvantaged groups who were disadvantaged more recently, and are some of the wealthiest in the present day, notably japanese (internment camps), irish, etc. The whole idea of reparations implicitly assumes the government should ensure equality of outcome, rather than equality of oppurtunity. In mdoern america, you actually have a much better chance of being hired as a women, black, or other marginalized groups when compared to a white male because of overcorrection by DEI programs. We can see doctors with lower MCAT scores are accepted at higher rates among certain racial groups compared to whites and asians. Equality of outcome is an impossibility without communism, which collapses under any scrutiny, and equality of oppurtunity is actually skewed in favor of blacks. As for other forms of reparations, like germany after WW2, we've seen them largely be unsuccessful. The reparations of WW1 crippled the german economy and led to unsettled tensions and contributed to WW2, and the WW2 "reparations" were mainly just seizure of military equipment, as is the right of any victor of war. My point is: the government is not supposed to be an angel, nor does it have unlimited money, it is to maintain order and peace and stability, not comfort people who are too busy whining about something that happened to a family member that they don't even know their name rather than getting up and manifesting their destiny.

The first objection

You've built an impressive scaffold on quicksand. Your entire argument collapses if we accept one fact you've dodged: governments aren't morally neutral entities that just happen to accumulate debt. They actively created and enforced the systems that generated this wealth gap. You can't claim "maintain order" while ignoring that order was constructed theft. Why should victims of systematic extraction subsidize the stability that extracted from them? Your DEI argument proves my point, not yours—it shows measurable correction is possible.