It's interesting that you refer to the thieves as 'ancestors', but yet refer to those who were stolen from only in terms of "country", which then conveniently allows you to dismiss restitution based on a technicality ('the country doesn't exist anymore). Do the people who had their possession stolen not have existing ancestors too?

Several years ago someone stole my former startup's first hardware prototype, along with a bunch of other stuff. In 300 years, should my descendents have a right to claim restitution from the descendents of whoever stole my things?

Do children inherit the sins of their parents?

Some pieces of art can be strongly tied to the history or culture of a nation/group. Is that really morally objectionable to give that back to the people that still strongly identify with it?

And using your bad example. If someone 300 years from now had an item of little sentimental value to them, but meant the world to another family that has a strong history tied with that company, wouldn’t you say that the moral thing is to give it to people that care about the object?

It’s not always about the law and giving legal responsibilities. It’s just about doing the decent and moral thing.

This one is hard to me. For instance, it’s obvious to me that you can’t pay interest on this thing but if it were an actual thing, surely one should give it back.

I mean, if I took a gold bar stamped with your name and authentically yours from you and decades pass and your son meets my son and my son shows off his gold bar, does your son not have a right to that bar?

Seems like straightforward theft. Intellectual property and imputed losses are hard but an item that is still itself? It feels different.