• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama compiling secret race database

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
... The database is going to be used because the supreme court has ruled that "the existence of racial disparity in housing" is enough for someone to sue.

HUD is going to go into suburbs tell them that they have a racial disparity in housing and then mandate that they ship in minorities.

This is forced migration based on race.
Click to expand...

Gosh. Think this will be like the Black Codes? Poor white southrons, so mistreated always, ever playing clean, never denying rights, always recognizing what is due, so noble and Christian they must be superior, and unable to fly their flag of solidarity on public land, poor babies. It's a lie the constitution ever defined black people as 3/5 a white in their value as citizens and humans. Never had zoning laws in big cities to sway home financing and shape districts, well into the late 20th century. My heart goes out to you.

You poor folks also never learned there was a social contract acting as foundation for any constitution, which you mistake as the most fundamental source of political reasoning, and so miss out on all the principles. Sad.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
Gosh. Think this will be like the Black Codes? Poor white southrons, so mistreated always, ever playing clean, never denying rights, always recognizing what is due, so noble and Christian they must be superior, and unable to fly their flag of solidarity on public land, poor babies. It's a lie the constitution ever defined black people as 3/5 a white in their value as citizens and humans. Never had zoning laws in big cities to sway home financing and shape districts, well into the late 20th century. My heart goes out to you.

You poor folks also never learned there was a social contract acting as foundation for any constitution, which you mistake as the most fundamental source of political reasoning, and so miss out on all the principles. Sad.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the (metaphorical) social contract does what now?
 
phiwum said:
Sorry, the (metaphorical) social contract does what now?
Click to expand...

It establishes the principles that should not be abrogated arguing that constitution and existing laws are supreme. The US Constitution, in its original formulation, ran afoul of its own purported principles by establishing non-whites as 3/5 human. In this easy example, we see that legal systems amount to crap if they violate the social contract, the idea that power is delegated by all adult individuals, held to be equal regardless of identity, to the state.

Violation of the social contract, asymmetric legal treatment of a collective, is the proximate cause for the rebellion of the US colonies. The US hard right is able to remember this selectively, with stunning amnesia when needed.

The social contract comes into play also, for example, when a permanent minority wishes to separate politically. This almost always runs against the prevailing legal system, requiring a political decision, such as allowing Quebec to vote on the issue, or denying the same to Catalonia.

If the right could get their mind around this, there would be less quoting of the Constitution as if it were the King James Bible. We are not some flawed lesser generation dependent on the understanding of freedom that prevailed before two centuries of practical experience and vast amounts of new knowledge.

The so-called Supreme Court itself has at times acted in ways to deny the value and equality of all. Simply put, a legal system is not the final arbiter, rather it is the will of the people alone, limited by the inalienable rights of each, that lends its legitimacy to any system. BTW, thanks for highlighting how forgotten Democracy 101 has become.
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
It establishes the principles that should not be abrogated arguing that constitution and existing laws are supreme. The US Constitution, in its original formulation, ran afoul of its own purported principles by establishing non-whites as 3/5 human. In this easy example, we see that legal systems amount to crap if they violate the social contract, the idea that power is delegated by all adult individuals, held to be equal regardless of identity, to the state.

Violation of the social contract, asymmetric legal treatment of a collective, is the proximate cause for the rebellion of the US colonies. The US hard right is able to remember this selectively, with stunning amnesia when needed.

The social contract comes into play also, for example, when a permanent minority wishes to separate politically. This almost always runs against the prevailing legal system, requiring a political decision, such as allowing Quebec to vote on the issue, or denying the same to Catalonia.

If the right could get their mind around this, there would be less quoting of the Constitution as if it were the King James Bible. We are not some flawed lesser generation dependent on the understanding of freedom that prevailed before two centuries of practical experience and vast amounts of new knowledge.

The so-called Supreme Court itself has at times acted in ways to deny the value and equality of all. Simply put, a legal system is not the final arbiter, rather it is the will of the people alone, limited by the inalienable rights of each, that lends its legitimacy to any system. BTW, thanks for highlighting how forgotten Democracy 101 has become.
Click to expand...

The social contract is a philosophical metaphor that corresponds to no real agreement at all. It is a fictional event, a pretense. Our caveman forefathers never got together and actually discussed the guarantees that would be necessary in order to secure their allegiance to society, there was never any agreement that it would be wrong to treat other races differently, and so on.

I'm sympathetic to the view there are natural rights, but you don't get too far by believing in the social contract in any literal sense. At best, you justify reference to the contract as a means of determining what a rational agent would choose, were he actually in a setting to be a founder of society. In that case, of course, you may face radical underdetermination but you should be able to justify some choices.

So, I don't think it's a matter of the U.S. "forgetting" that rights really come from some non-existent compact. It's a matter of the compact itself being a mere philosophical thought experiment, one which has some popularity in academia but little elsewhere.
 
phiwum said:
The social contract is a philosophical metaphor that corresponds to no real agreement at all. It is a fictional event, a pretense. Our caveman forefathers never got together and actually discussed the guarantees that would be necessary in order to secure their allegiance to society, there was never any agreement that it would be wrong to treat other races differently, and so on.

I'm sympathetic to the view there are natural rights, but you don't get too far by believing in the social contract in any literal sense. At best, you justify reference to the contract as a means of determining what a rational agent would choose, were he actually in a setting to be a founder of society. In that case, of course, you may face radical underdetermination but you should be able to justify some choices.

So, I don't think it's a matter of the U.S. "forgetting" that rights really come from some non-existent compact. It's a matter of the compact itself being a mere philosophical thought experiment, one which has some popularity in academia but little elsewhere.
Click to expand...

You now have the burden of arguing for equal rights, equal voting rights, and universal suffrage. These have often been ignored by constitutional law. Getting these rights and recognitions into law involves the appeals to "philosophy" you mention, but seem to think superfluous.

IOW, how do you make the argument for representative democracy without such an appeal? The Declaration of Independence is just one sort of such reasoning, based on just the sort of philosophy you seem to be discounting as historically non-operative.
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
You now have the burden of arguing for equal rights, equal voting rights, and universal suffrage. These have often been ignored by constitutional law. Getting these rights and recognitions into law involves the appeals to "philosophy" you mention, but seem to think superfluous.

IOW, how do you make the argument for representative democracy without such an appeal? The Declaration of Independence is just one sort of such reasoning, based on just the sort of philosophy you seem to be discounting as historically non-operative.
Click to expand...

I made no claim about a philosophy being "historically non-operative". I merely claimed that what you take for granted -- namely, that in some sense (perhaps metaphorical), there is a social contract and that this contract necessarily includes the various values you think are essential to democracy -- is not at all non-controversial. You can't reasonably call others ignorant for not accepting as fact something which is dubious.

And you can't argue for the plausibility of the social contract on the grounds that it leads to a conclusion you like (namely, that democracy is good).

I tend to be sympathetic to the idea that there is an objective morality, and that such a morality may entail that values such as equality, liberty, etc., are fundamentally good. I don't, however, pretend to be able to justify my sympathy, because I don't know any persuasive arguments which settle this question.

I think that, similarly, you shouldn't pretend that social contract theory is obviously correct, without a clear argument to this effect. Such an argument would require, I think, some indication of the following:

(1) The historic status of the social contract.
(1a) If the contract is metaphorical, an indication why such a fanciful thought experiment should provide binding norms in the real world.
(1b) If the contract is historical, an indication why it should bind anyone living today, given that we did not willingly enter into any such agreement.
(2) An indication of how decisions regarding the contract were made.
(3) An indication of some of the necessary features of such a contract.
(4) An indication of some of the social features which are underdetermined by the presumption of a contract.

Without such an argument, I just don't see why anyone would appear foolish to dismiss social contract theory.
 
phiwum said:
I made no claim about a philosophy being "historically non-operative". I merely claimed that what you take for granted -- namely, that in some sense (perhaps metaphorical), there is a social contract and that this contract necessarily includes the various values you think are essential to democracy -- is not at all non-controversial. You can't reasonably call others ignorant for not accepting as fact something which is dubious.

And you can't argue for the plausibility of the social contract on the grounds that it leads to a conclusion you like (namely, that democracy is good).

I tend to be sympathetic to the idea that there is an objective morality, and that such a morality may entail that values such as equality, liberty, etc., are fundamentally good. I don't, however, pretend to be able to justify my sympathy, because I don't know any persuasive arguments which settle this question.

I think that, similarly, you shouldn't pretend that social contract theory is obviously correct, without a clear argument to this effect. Such an argument would require, I think, some indication of the following:

(1) The historic status of the social contract.
(1a) If the contract is metaphorical, an indication why such a fanciful thought experiment should provide binding norms in the real world.
(1b) If the contract is historical, an indication why it should bind anyone living today, given that we did not willingly enter into any such agreement.
(2) An indication of how decisions regarding the contract were made.
(3) An indication of some of the necessary features of such a contract.
(4) An indication of some of the social features which are underdetermined by the presumption of a contract.

Without such an argument, I just don't see why anyone would appear foolish to dismiss social contract theory.
Click to expand...

The term includes the word "contract," but it does not mean there is some physical contract. In its most basic form: government rules by consent of the governed. Take that implicit concept out, and the entire house of cards falls. (Implicit today, stuff of legendary documented discussion prior to functioning democracy. A bit later than the cave man era, though.)

For the historical example you were requesting, providing a factual foundation to my original observation:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Click to expand...

[Interestingly, I find that an update of this argument is precisely what might improve civil discourse regarding political issues, as it is now fairly straightforward to make argument without recourse to any mention of a deity. That reference in the DoI sometimes causes a world of hurt.]

What is your argument for representative democracy? Or mine? I think that whatever the case, we will find we are expressing our understanding of what is normally referred to as the social contract. Most recent important update is here.

As for the derivation via objective argument from scientific fact you allude to, that is not required. Individual preference shaped by consensus into social preference is all that is required. However, some science might be useful to the argument, such as that regarding an innate moral sense based on the theory of mind (there is no lock-step grammar for "well-formed moral statements" as in the case of innate linguistic competency, however.)
 
CORed said:
I recall reading that dBase, a once popular DOS database program, was originally developed so the author could keep track of horse race results.
Click to expand...

I think it's still popular - I used it professionally years ago, and have a recent copy on my laptop!

I suspect that Mike Rozlog the CEO makes more money from dBase that from the horses. :)
 
Hlafordlaes said:
The term includes the word "contract," but it does not mean there is some physical contract. In its most basic form: government rules by consent of the governed. Take that implicit concept out, and the entire house of cards falls. (Implicit today, stuff of legendary documented discussion prior to functioning democracy. A bit later than the cave man era, though.)

For the historical example you were requesting, providing a factual foundation to my original observation:


[Interestingly, I find that an update of this argument is precisely what might improve civil discourse regarding political issues, as it is now fairly straightforward to make argument without recourse to any mention of a deity. That reference in the DoI sometimes causes a world of hurt.]

What is your argument for representative democracy? Or mine? I think that whatever the case, we will find we are expressing our understanding of what is normally referred to as the social contract. Most recent important update is here.

As for the derivation via objective argument from scientific fact you allude to, that is not required. Individual preference shaped by consensus into social preference is all that is required. However, some science might be useful to the argument, such as that regarding an innate moral sense based on the theory of mind (there is no lock-step grammar for "well-formed moral statements" as in the case of innate linguistic competency, however.)
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that Locke was an influence on the Declaration, though the preamble stresses natural rights more than the social contract, in my view -- and this is an important distinction. Natural rights exist prior to and independently of any social contract.

I think that you suggested earlier that the Supreme Court should remember the Social Contract is more fundamental than the Constitution. To this, I can only say, "Poppycock!" Let them interpret an actual, written constitution, rather than indulge in philosophical speculation about what men in a state of nature would have agreed to. Don't get me wrong; I like philosophy. I just don't think that this kind of speculation would serve a good purpose in the Supreme Court.

Finally, it's not at all clear to me that Social Contract theory really gives any clear guidance on these matters at all. To drag it back to the topic at hand, would Social Contract theory actually tell us whether forced integration is a good or bad thing? Those who value liberty may think that forced integration is such an imposition on the freedom of citizens that we would not have given the government the right to do so in the original contract. Those who value equality may think instead that society's need for a well-integrated and hence harmonious society demands a certain restriction in one's freedom to choose where and with whom to live. I see no particular resolution to this question in Social Contract theory, unless we can first evaluate the relative values of liberty, security and equality, and we can reasonably assess the net result of forced integration.

So, I just don't see that the Social Contract tells us anything except on the broadest scale (liberty, security and equality are all good things). It is not particularly applicable in solving actual political disputes, in my humble opinion.

(That said, I have not read Locke in decades and am not particularly well-read on social philosophy.)
 
phiwum said:
There's no doubt that Locke was an influence on the Declaration, though the preamble stresses natural rights more than the social contract, in my view -- and this is an important distinction. Natural rights exist prior to and independently of any social contract.
Click to expand...

This is good enough, as long as those rights are not selected on the basis of false criteria. On this level, homo sapiens is homo sapiens, and any argument for differentiation along any lines, except adulthood, is very hard, if not impossible, for any version of natural rights that is not rigged.

I think that you suggested earlier that the Supreme Court should remember the Social Contract is more fundamental than the Constitution. To this, I can only say, "Poppycock!" Let them interpret an actual, written constitution, rather than indulge in philosophical speculation about what men in a state of nature would have agreed to. Don't get me wrong; I like philosophy. I just don't think that this kind of speculation would serve a good purpose in the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
What I said was that the SCOTUS has made racist and sexist decisions in the past. A clear proof that constitutional law is simply not enough to ensure the society we live in is in line with natural rights, or the expression of the will of all the people. These last are more fundamental, my original point.

Finally, it's not at all clear to me that Social Contract theory really gives any clear guidance on these matters at all. To drag it back to the topic at hand, would Social Contract theory actually tell us whether forced integration is a good or bad thing? Those who value liberty may think that forced integration is such an imposition on the freedom of citizens that we would not have given the government the right to do so in the original contract. Those who value equality may think instead that society's need for a well-integrated and hence harmonious society demands a certain restriction in one's freedom to choose where and with whom to live. I see no particular resolution to this question in Social Contract theory, unless we can first evaluate the relative values of liberty, security and equality, and we can reasonably assess the net result of forced integration.

So, I just don't see that the Social Contract tells us anything except on the broadest scale (liberty, security and equality are all good things). It is not particularly applicable in solving actual political disputes, in my humble opinion.

(That said, I have not read Locke in decades and am not particularly well-read on social philosophy.)
Click to expand...
I think that the quick overview we've had so far already indicates there is very much yet to be done in the US. Continued support for unenlightened policies that deny natural rights and delegitimize any who are other is exactly what the hard right in the US is about.

And so my original point: The hard right in the US is fixated on Constitutional law and is clueless as to how that runs afoul of the very foundations of democracy. It is a literalist, unthinking, self-contradictory set of positions, making no sense whatsoever.... Well, that's not true. They do make sense as "all for my in-group, out-groups be damned." Stone age thinking, indeed.
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
This is good enough, as long as those rights are not selected on the basis of false criteria. On this level, homo sapiens is homo sapiens, and any argument for differentiation along any lines, except adulthood, is very hard, if not impossible, for any version of natural rights that is not rigged.

What I said was that the SCOTUS has made racist and sexist decisions in the past. A clear proof that constitutional law is simply not enough to ensure the society we live in is in line with natural rights, or the expression of the will of all the people. These last are more fundamental, my original point.

I think that the quick overview we've had so far already indicates there is very much yet to be done in the US. Continued support for unenlightened policies that deny natural rights and delegitimize any who are other is exactly what the hard right in the US is about.

And so my original point: The hard right in the US is fixated on Constitutional law and is clueless as to how that runs afoul of the very foundations of democracy. It is a literalist, unthinking, self-contradictory set of positions, making no sense whatsoever.... Well, that's not true. They do make sense as "all for my in-group, out-groups be damned." Stone age thinking, indeed.
Click to expand...

We'll leave the discussion here, I suppose. My closing comments are that I don't think it's fair to say that hard conservatism is necessarily aligned with racism, and that I feel a heck of a lot better having a Supreme Court dealing with an actual, written document than guessing what a metaphorical document would contain in ideal circumstances.
 
phiwum said:
We'll leave the discussion here, I suppose. My closing comments are that I don't think it's fair to say that hard conservatism is necessarily aligned with racism, and that I feel a heck of a lot better having a Supreme Court dealing with an actual, written document than guessing what a metaphorical document would contain in ideal circumstances.
Click to expand...

I'd respond to rest of the closing, but I agree we should end here. A pleasure speaking with you.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
My Quotes:



The database is going to be used because the supreme court has ruled that "the existence of racial disparity in housing" is enough for someone to sue.

HUD is going to go into suburbs tell them that they have a racial disparity in housing and then mandate that they ship in minorities.

This is forced migration based on race.

Here is a link to the supreme court ruling;
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/s...-disparate-impact-includes-a-cautionary-tale/

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>

Edit for rule 0/rule 12.
Click to expand...

I live in a city that is 63% Hispanic. Does that mean my Hispanic neighbors will have to be moved out to make room for Anglos?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom