"Unity"

[dblack]

Then what exactly are you saying because we seem to be in agreement that Black Americans are owed economic justice, correct?

I don't know what "economic justice" is, other than an excuse for socialism. There was very real injustice involved in the institution of slavery, however. If you can show that the descendants of slaves are still suffering from that injustice, awards for damages may be justified.

But, again, you're after something different.

What if society decides to use government as the mechanism, what's wrong with that?

It's not authorized in the Constitution. You really don't get, or just don't want to acknowledge, how the Constitution works. It's what makes democracy possible. Without limits on majority rule, the minority has no incentive to play along, and they won't. For example, even if "we the people" took a vote and the majority decided to legalize slavery, the Constitution would block it - the will of the majority be damned.

If society wants to use government to manage "economic justice", we need to renegotiate the Constitution, not just take a vote, or pretend that the current Constitution doesn't exist.

 

[MisterBeale]

I expect the market to eventually take care of this.


Either cable and broadcast media will be sued and economically FORCED to start telling the public the real facts and real truth because they are losing eyeballs . . .

Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Trend Low

Americans' confidence in the media is at its lowest point, as Democrats' confidence is near the record low and Republicans' is almost nonexistent.

news.gallup.com

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/14/politics/trump-abc-news-defamation-lawsuit-settle/index.html

The Way To Stop The Media From Lying Is To Make Them Pay

President Donald Trump said Monday that he would be suing other members of corporate media after his ABC News settlement.

thefederalist.com

Or Americans of all philosophical dispositions will start to rely exclusively on the new media.


Once folks have the reality of the situation, regardless of where they stand, at that point, they will be able to start to work together to find solutions to the nation's problems.

Ana Kasparian STUNS Glenn Beck After ADMITTING She Was TRICKED While Exposing Democrat CORRUPTION!​

MSNBC, CNN Hit New Ratings LOW; Networks Have NO IDEA How To Handle Trump Win​

Premiered Dec 16, 2024

 

[Curried Goats]

I don't know what "economic justice" is, other than an excuse for socialism. There was very real injustice involved in the institution of slavery, however. If you can show that the descendants of slaves are still suffering from that injustice, awards for damages may be justified.

But, again, you're after something different.

You keep saying this but above you describe the very thing I'm after, justice for injustice. Why do you act confused over the term economic justice when you call for justice in the form of payments yourself?

That I might advocate for policies in other areas you deem socialist and are opposed to is no reason to conflate an issue we actually seem to agree on.

It's not authorized in the Constitution. You really don't get, or just don't want to acknowledge, how the Constitution works.

I just disagree with you on how the Constitution should work, thats all. Its a document written by people. It has no objective function, only subjective ones.

It's what makes democracy possible. Without limits on majority rule, the minority has no incentive to play along, and they won't. For example, even if "we the people" took a vote and the majority decided to legalize slavery, the Constitution would block it - the will of the majority be damned.

Except the Constitution has famously allowed slavery and segregation longer than it has equal rights. In fact some people are still fighting for equal rights.

If society wants to use government to manage "economic justice", we need to renegotiate the Constitution, not just take a vote, or pretend that the current Constitution doesn't exist.

That seems to be more of an emotional argument than a reflection of how society and government actually work.

 

[MisterBeale]

deprivation of liberty in slavery

Slavery officially ended in 1873. Any living slave that has a case, should definitely bring it before the courts.

and segregation.

Segregation officially ended in ended in 1964. Any person that can show economic harm or show cause that civil rights laws have been violated, most definitely should bring suit.


". . . However, there is also the issue of de facto segregation. This is segregation, where you see a divide in communities and the use of facilities by geographical location and socioeconomic status. While there may not be any law in place forcing black and white people apart, that doesn’t mean there isn’t some separation. De facto segregation exists in many cities today, often with black people and other minority Americans inhabiting poorer or more deprived areas. . . "

What Year Did Segregation End?

Racial segregation blighted the United States for many years. What year did segregation end, and what forms of inequality is America dealing with today?

constitutionus.com

There is no law or power enforcing de facto segregation, so it is unconstitutional to create laws which manipulate the populace and socially engineer it.


If you do not like the Constitution, you are certainly free to follow the lead of James Baldwin.

 

[dblack]

You keep saying this but above you describe the very thing I'm after, justice for injustice. Why do you act confused over the term economic justice when you call for justice in the form of payments yourself?

Because "economic justice" usually means more than paying someone back for damages.

Let look at some examples:

If women are paid less than men for equivalent work, is that "socioeconomic injustice"? Should the government do something about it?

How about extreme income inequality. Is that "socioeconomic injustice"?

If people with disabilities can't find work because most companies don't accommodate their disability, is that "socioeconomic injustice"?

None of these issues are matters of actual justice. But I think you'd agree that they are examples of "socioeconomic injustice".

Do you see the difference?

 

[marvin martian]

Projecting about what exactly?

Your intense desire to be white, obviously.

 

[dblack]

I just disagree with you on how the Constitution should work, thats all. Its a document written by people. It has no objective function, only subjective ones.

Ok. Let's say there was a movement to get rid of the Constitution altogether, or to replace it with one that didn't limit the "will of the people". If the people wanted to nationalize the oil industry, if the majority willed it to be so, they could do it. If they wanted to seize the assets of all billionaires and give them to the poor, they could do that. Also, if they wanted to, if they had the votes, they could legalize slavery. Would you sign up to live under that government?

 

[Curried Goats]

Because "economic justice" usually means more than paying someone back for damages.

Let look at some examples:

If women are paid less than men for equivalent work, is that "socioeconomic injustice"? Should the government do something about it?

How about extreme income inequality. Is that "socioeconomic injustice"?

If people with disabilities can't find work because most companies don't accommodate their disability, is that "socioeconomic injustice"?

None of these issues are matters of actual justice. But I think you'd say they are examples of "socioeconomic injustice".

Do you see the difference?

I see you make believing what I believe in rather than addressing what I actually said.

A company not paying a woman the same they pay a man for the same work while unfortunate, is not the same as the government enforcing your status as slave or second class citizen as it did with segregation. During segregation government policies refused to ensure homes in black neighborhoods and subsidized the building of white ones. When it's government policy that is ensuring subjugation and disenfranchisment, that is what I would characterize as socioeconomic injustice.

That isn't to say I wouldn't be in favor of government policies addressing those business practices but not under the guise that they are unjust, just preferable.

 

[Curried Goats]

Ok. Let's say there was a movement to get rid of the Constitution altogether, or to replace it with one that didn't limit the "will of the people". If the people wanted to nationalize the oil industry, if the majority willed it to be so, they could do it. If they wanted to seize the assets of all billionaires and give them to the poor, they could do that. Also, if they wanted to, if they had the votes, they could legalize slavery. Would you sign up to live under that government?

It's not a matter of whether I'd sign up for it so much as that's just the reality of the way things are. The Constitution isnt a magic forcefield limited by your strong feelings and conviction. It's a political document. Don't get it twisted.

 

[bendog]

I see you make believing what I believe in rather than addressing what I actually said.

A company not paying a woman the same they pay a man for the same work while unfortunate, is not the same as the government enforcing your status as slave or second class citizen as it did with segregation. During segregation government policies refused to ensure homes in black neighborhoods and subsidized the building of white ones. When it's government policy that is ensuring subjugation and disenfranchisment, that is what I would characterize as socioeconomic injustice.

That isn't to say I wouldn't be in favor of government policies addressing those business practices but not under the guise that they are unjust, just preferable.

But it's unjust to not give an elite college spot to the highest gpa/test score kid rather than a race preference. Or perhaps you'd say it IS just.

Justice is not synonymous with fairness. And as JFK noted, life is not fair.

 

[Curried Goats]

But it's unjust to not give an elite college spot to the highest gpa/test score kid rather than a race preference. Or perhaps you'd say it IS just.

Justice is not synonymous with fairness. And as JFK noted, life is not fair.

What?

 

[dblack]

I see you make believing what I believe in rather than addressing what I actually said.

A company not paying a woman the same they pay a man for the same work while unfortunate, is not the same as the government enforcing your status as slave or second class citizen as it did with segregation.

I agree. But is it "socioeconomic injustice"? That was the question I asked. Is it something government is responsible for addressing?

 

[Curried Goats]

I agree. But is it "socioeconomic injustice"? That was the question I asked. Is it something government is responsible for addressing?

I answered that didn't I? I said no on the is it socioeconomic injustice and it is something government could address if voters wanted them to.

 

[dblack]

It's not a matter of whether I'd sign up for it so much as that's just the reality of the way things are. The Constitution isnt a magic forcefield limited by your strong feelings and conviction. It's a political document. Don't get it twisted.

It IS a question of whether you'd sign up. Because that's what the Constitution does. It makes it possible for people to sign up for majority rule. If that majority rule isn't limited by something at a more fundamental level, if the majority can vote to do literally anything they want, if they can vote to murder you and your or family because you're "in the way" - only a fool would sign on to that.

Sure, ultimately, the Constitution is "just a piece of paper" - it's only as good as the will of the people to maintain the limits it codifies. But it's a clear agreement which is far better than a blind death pact. You might be OK with a government authorized to legalize slavery. I'm not.

 

[Curried Goats]

It IS a question of whether you'd sign up. Because that's what the Constitution does. It makes it possible for people to sign up for majority rule. If that majority rule isn't limited by something at a more fundamental level, if the majority can vote to do literally anything they want, if they can vote to murder you and your or family because you're "in the way" - only a fool would sign on to that.

Sure, ultimately, the Constitution is "just a piece of paper" - it's only as good as the will of the people to maintain the limits it codifies. But it's a clear agreement which is far better than a blind death pact. You might be OK with a government authorized to legalize slavery. I'm not.

It's not a blind death pact, I don't even know what the fuck that is....

It's just reality as I see. You yourself admit it's just a piece of paper that is interpreted by the people of the society it belongs to. It can be whatever it wants to the people who weild social, political and economic power. That's just the way the world works. And those people can just vote to murder me. The Constitution doesn't prevent that. It allowed that for plenty of people who looked like me for centuries. I'm not ok with it, I just recognize my objection doesn't mean anything in the face of superior social, political and economic power.

 

[dblack]

The Constitution doesn't prevent that. It allowed that for plenty of people who looked like me for centuries.

And we amended it so that now slavery is not allowed. Even if the majority of voters in a state decide to legalize it, the Court would strike it down. Would you be comfortable removing that protection? With repealing the 13th Amendment? Fortunately, it would take a lot more that majority rule to do that. But you don't seem to value that fact at all.

 

[Curried Goats]

And we amended it so that now slavery is not allowed. Even if the majority of voters in a state decide to legalize it, the Court would strike it down. Would you be comfortable removing that protection? With repealing the 13th Amendment? Fortunately, it would take a lot more that majority rule to do that. But you don't seem to value that fact at all.

Of course I wouldn't be comfortable with it, what kind of silly question is that?

Any government interested in bringing back slavery by force is going to be unmoved by your interpretation of the Constitution, that's what you don't seem to get. I'm amused you think you're going to combat people intent on bringing slavery back by waving a piece of parchment at them.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Then what exactly are you saying because we seem to be in agreement that Black Americans are owed economic justice, correct?

How much is “owed” to black brain surgeons like Ben Carson and ex Presidents like Barack Obama?

 

[dblack]

Of course I wouldn't be comfortable with it, what kind of silly question is that?

Ok. So you do value Constitutional limits on state power. Earlier it seemed you were dismissing that notion.

Any government interested in bringing back slavery by force is going to be unmoved by your interpretation of the Constitution ...

It's the Court's interpretation that matters. So if a state decided to go rogue and legalize slavery, and the Court had any shred of integrity left, they'd strike it down and the state wouldn't be allowed to do that. You seem to implicitly recognize the value of that in your comment above, but now you're saying it's silly, that it's "waving a piece of parchment" at them. Make up your mind.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You keep saying this but above you describe the very thing I'm after, justice for injustice. Why do you act confused over the term economic justice when you call for justice in the form of payments yourself?

That I might advocate for policies in other areas you deem socialist and are opposed to is no reason to conflate an issue we actually seem to agree on.

I just disagree with you on how the Constitution should work, thats all. Its a document written by people. It has no objective function, only subjective ones.

Except the Constitution has famously allowed slavery and segregation longer than it has equal rights. In fact some people are still fighting for equal rights.

That seems to be more of an emotional argument than a reflection of how society and government actually work.

What was your highest level of grade school?