Note the word "Cumulatively"

[Dimmesdale]

Cumulatively, does Reality, by its many effects, moreso disfavor blacks over whites (in the present or in the past) - (I will hazard an admitted yes)? And on that basis, are we justified in off-setting this imbalance, even if it is not "practical" (this part, I would have to say, no)?

This is because the "no" proposition gets in the way of rights and self-determination for whites. Something blacks by their very nature (as equal human beings) prize just as much.

[Purple Knight]

Cumulatively, does Reality, by its many effects, moreso disfavor blacks over whites (in the present or in the past) - (I will hazard an admitted yes)? And on that basis, are we justified in off-setting this imbalance, even if it is not "practical" (this part, I would have to say, no)?

It depends on why the imbalance exists. The con position (which I do not champion, but must entertain) or part thereof, is that Blacks simply have more children, so of course they're poor. If this were true I would say it would be unfair to take from the Panda people who neutered their reproductive success so their fewer children could be better off, and give to Christmas Crabs who, despite enjoying less success per individual, have vastly more success as a population.

I think we should explore that possibility even if it smells bad.

But if the reason for the imbalance really is just systematic failing to be fair, then of course redistribution is justified. Those who benefit from the system willingly are the ones who can't complain about what it does. That's why Socrates willingly submitted to death as a punishment for running around annoying people.

However, I don't think you can take from people who did not opt into the system. There are real, true, "rights and self-determination" people and they don't opt in. They want out. This makes things extremely complicated because if people know reparations are coming, they'll denounce the system if they can. This might actually be valid for workers who have no other choice, they might legitimately be surviving the only way they can. It also might not be valid, and those workers might love the idea that the system favours them even if they never reaped much of that favour as real wealth.

But the businessman who gleefully plays the monopoly board and enforces the rules thereof against his competitors, so he can win? No. He shouldn't be allowed to get out of it. Not once did he see a competitor floundering under an unjust rule, and stay his hand. He believes in competition, not justice. And he uses the whims of the system to his benefit. Therefore he also is subject to the whims of the system. He agreed to that every time he enforced a rule he knew was arbitrarily in his favour.