California's proposition 16 is a violation of social justice

[Junzhuo Gu]

California's proposition 16 is a violation of social justice
California Proposition 16 allows the government to consider race, gender, color, race or ethnic origin in its policy-making, so as to solve the problem of diversity by repealing the constitutional provisions prohibiting such policies.
California act 16 trampled on social justice based on respect for individual's natural ability under the pretext of safeguarding the equal right to education of different races. The evil of this bill is that it despises individual nature, denies the inequality caused by personal ability, and pursues absolute equality, thus threatening social justice. Because social justice is based on the respect and protection of individual nature, which is also a source of national strength and vitality.
In the Republic, Plato summed up the definition of justice and held that: under the premise that private property rights are protected, justice is everyone's occupation in line with his nature. In Plato's eyes, respect and protection of individual nature is an important factor in the implementation of national justice.
The pursuit of absolute equality is an extremely dangerous signal. With this logic, property inequality between different races is equally unacceptable. Then the property claims made by the blacks in this riot are reasonable. Only by implementing socialism can we fundamentally solve the problem of property inequality among different races.
The relative equality based on individual nature is the reasonable equality. One of the important reasons why people praise Marxism is that they want to pursue absolute equality. From the disastrous social practice of Marxism in human history, we have already seen the serious consequences of pursuing absolute equality.
It is the highest principle for a country to operate normally to respect the individual's natural ability, to respect each person's position in the social division of labor according to his nature, and to respect the inequality caused by different individual natures. California act 16 tramples on such a principle, which is extremely dangerous. It will encourage the extremist thought of pursuing absolute equality, undermine social justice, and endanger the basic values of American democracy.
Junzhuo Gu
10-5-2020

 

[Somerville]

Junzhuo Gu"s argument sounds worthwhile and I did see one eensy-bitsy possible problem for the future. If Proposition 209 was repealed by approval of Proposition 16 - it seems to allow discrimination for race, gender or ethnic origin. So I had to do a little quick research and found the following

California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020)

Proposition 16 would remove the ban on affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences from the California Constitution. Therefore, federal law would define the parameters of affirmative action. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that race-based affirmative action in higher education and government contracting must be reviewed under strict scrutiny. In the U.S., strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that requires a law, policy, or program to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to address that interest. Courts have ruled that strict racial quotas and racial point systems in higher education admissions are unconstitutional but that individualized, holistic reviews that consider race, when tailored to serve a compelling interest (such as educational diversity), are constitutional.

It looks like there wouldn't be much of a change in legally dis-allowed actions by individuals, corporations or government entities as federal law bans such discrimination.

 

[Junzhuo Gu]

“Proposition 16 would remove the ban on affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences from the California Constitution. Therefore, federal law would define the parameters of affirmative action. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that race-based affirmative action in higher education and government contracting must be reviewed under strict scrutiny. In the U.S., strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that requires a law, policy, or program to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to address that interest. Courts have ruled that strict racial quotas and racial point systems in higher education admissions are unconstitutional but that individualized, holistic reviews that consider race, when tailored to serve a compelling interest (such as educational diversity), are constitutional.”

The above statement is self contradictory. Since it is illegal in general, there should be no exception.

 

[Junzhuo Gu]

The first principle that God has revealed to us is to respect everyone's nature and rights, not equality. Equality is based on the equality of opportunity under the condition of equal ability and the equality under the just law, not the absolute equality of social status and wealth. Therefore, equality is a state with many premises, which should not be absolute equality. People generally hold wrong views on the concept of equality. Once this wrong view becomes the mainstream of the society, it will inevitably lead to the spread of socialist thoughts. This is what the United States needs to be particularly vigilant about.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Let's just think about this for one minute. California, that bastion of progressivism and equality, is trying to remove prohibitions on racial and sex discrimination.

The state of California wants to be able to engage in race and sex discrimination.

It would be funny if it weren't so awful.

 

[Junzhuo Gu]

The state of California wants to be able to engage in race and sex discrimination.

Yes, California practices racial discrimination in the name of equality. How windy it is!

 

[Captain Adverse]

IMO there should never be any discrimination or preferential treatment in government processes based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc..

Instead, a business or government agency should be able to discriminate on the basis of skills, education, experience, knowledge, and behavior.

The BEST candidate should always be chosen solely on their merits and character, not on any "immutable characteristic" of birth.

 

[Somerville]

IF Proposition 209 is repealed, please notice the following

- federal law would define the parameters of affirmative action

Are you who are attacking California's Prop 16, now saying/believing that federal laws against discrimination are insufficient?

One might come to believe that "Libertarians" are incapable of accepting actual facts.

 

[Captain Adverse]

IF Proposition 209 is repealed, please notice the following

- federal law would define the parameters of affirmative action

Are you who are attacking California's Prop 16, now saying/believing that federal laws against discrimination are insufficient?

One might come to believe that "Libertarians" are incapable of accepting actual facts.

I've disagreed with "affirmative action" since it's inception.

It goes against everything Martin Luther King preached back in the day. Character and skillsets should be the determining factors; not the color of one's skin, sex, sexual orientation, etc..

IMO if we keep forcing people to judge other people not by their capabilities, but by their "immutable characteristics," then we are perpetuating all those "isms" into our social fabric.

IMO that is the root of the kinds of socio-political disruptions we see acting out in American cites currently. The disunity, the "grievance" politics, the hierarchy of oppression, and critical race theory.

 

[Junzhuo Gu]

IMO there should never be any discrimination or preferential treatment in government processes based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc..

Instead, a business or government agency should be able to discriminate on the basis of skills, education, experience, knowledge, and behavior.

The BEST candidate should always be chosen solely on their merits and character, not on any "immutable characteristic" of birth.

Only such a country can be full of vitality, because it encourages everyone to be active and study hard.

 

[COTO]

While we're on the subject of California:

Is it true that the CA legislature is now considering laws to tax businesses for years after they flee the state?

 

[Junzhuo Gu]

IF Proposition 209 is repealed, please notice the following

- federal law would define the parameters of affirmative action

Are you who are attacking California's Prop 16, now saying/believing that federal laws against discrimination are insufficient?

One might come to believe that "Libertarians" are incapable of accepting actual facts.

Yes, obviously federal law gives a paradoxical interpretation of racial discrimination. On the one hand, it is considered that racial discrimination is illegal; on the other hand, when it comes to specific problems, it is considered that discrimination is acceptable. It's ridiculous. The reason why American legal circles make such mistakes lies in their wrong interpretation of the revelation from God. Equality is not the highest principle. Human rights and respect for the individual are the highest principles. Therefore, the constitution of the United States is flawed.

 

[Junzhuo Gu]

“One might come to believe that "Libertarians" are incapable of accepting actual facts.”

Freedom and equality are words with vague meaning and easy to produce ambiguity. The most important concepts and values of human society are expressed in terms of human rights and respect for individuals

 

[Court Jester]

Kommiefornia is run by fools. Upside is that when North Korea finally gets a ICBM capable of hitting the US, it probably won't be able to get much past California.

 

[Junzhuo Gu]

While we're on the subject of California:

Is it true that the CA legislature is now considering laws to tax businesses for years after they flee the state?

How many talents will California lose? How much negative impact will it have on California's economy? California's approach is not to bridge racial barriers, but to create them. For those who are weak in knowledge ability, we should not give them jobs that are not matched with their abilities, but give them better social welfare on the basis of economic development.

 

[Lutherf]

IMO there should never be any discrimination or preferential treatment in government processes based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc..

Instead, a business or government agency should be able to discriminate on the basis of skills, education, experience, knowledge, and behavior.

The BEST candidate should always be chosen solely on their merits and character, not on any "immutable characteristic" of birth.

In an ideal world that would be fine but it's human nature that some will be excluded from certain positions based on criteria other than merit. Civil Rights legislation has attempted to address this reality by identifying specific groups and "protecting" them. Unfortunately, that method effectively CREATES classes of citizens instead of levels the playing field. While the legislation appears to be written as a "negative right" the enforcement of the legislation requires action in the form of "positive rights". For example, a law that says "Demographic X can't be denied service based on that characteristic" appears to cite a negative right (assures a given freedom) but, since it can only be enforced by mandating that the service be performed, the effect is that it functions as a positive right (guarantees the customer whatever service is under consideration).

When it comes to Civil Rights legislation we need to understand that the American concept of "equality" is that all men are CREATED equal. The idea was that we would not have a society (or laws or a system of justice) based on one's station in life. One was not born to nobility or any other privilege. That does not mean that they couldn't EARN privilege in society but it must also be understood that any societal privilege would not extend to the system of justice or the system of representation. For example, the Plessy decision which gave us "separate but equal" effectively allowed for a two-tiered system of government. The Brown decision went the other direction and mandated certain actions then the 1964 CRA placed more mandates on top of that. The result has been that we have developed a habit of carving out legislative "niches" for certain groups and made the concept of "identity politics" a politically viable option.

 

[Junzhuo Gu]

In an ideal world that would be fine but it's human nature that some will be excluded from certain positions based on criteria other than merit. Civil Rights legislation has attempted to address this reality by identifying specific groups and "protecting" them. Unfortunately, that method effectively CREATES classes of citizens instead of levels the playing field. While the legislation appears to be written as a "negative right" the enforcement of the legislation requires action in the form of "positive rights". For example, a law that says "Demographic X can't be denied service based on that characteristic" appears to cite a negative right (assures a given freedom) but, since it can only be enforced by mandating that the service be performed, the effect is that it functions as a positive right (guarantees the customer whatever service is under consideration).

When it comes to Civil Rights legislation we need to understand that the American concept of "equality" is that all men are CREATED equal. The idea was that we would not have a society (or laws or a system of justice) based on one's station in life. One was not born to nobility or any other privilege. That does not mean that they couldn't EARN privilege in society but it must also be understood that any societal privilege would not extend to the system of justice or the system of representation. For example, the Plessy decision which gave us "separate but equal" effectively allowed for a two-tiered system of government. The Brown decision went the other direction and mandated certain actions then the 1964 CRA placed more mandates on top of that. The result has been that we have developed a habit of carving out legislative "niches" for certain groups and made the concept of "identity politics" a politically viable option.

All people are born with natural rights. Such a right is limited to the natural rights of others. If the law gives some people extra rights and damages others, natural law should give them rights. Such laws are obviously evil laws and should not be tolerated.

 

[Lutherf]

All people are born with natural rights. Such a right is limited to the natural rights of others. If the law gives some people extra rights and damages others, natural law should give them rights. Such laws are obviously evil laws and should not be tolerated.

I think a lot of people end up confused about "natural rights" and "civil rights". They hear "rights" and don't make any additional distinction. It's always important in these discussions to remember that "natural rights" are those that exist exclusive of society. The rights to life, freedom of action and freedom to own the benefits of that action are not dependent on society. Nobody grants those rights but, under certain circumstances, they can be abridged or denied by society. Civil rights are different. These are rights granted by society. The right to human dignity, for example, doesn't exist outside of society and therefore isn't "natural".

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Are you who are attacking California's Prop 16, now saying/believing that federal laws against discrimination are insufficient?

To the extent it allows public institutions to practice race and sex discrimination, absolutely they are.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

While we're on the subject of California:

Is it true that the CA legislature is now considering laws to tax businesses for years after they flee the state?

And people. And retroactively.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The first principle that God has revealed to us is to respect everyone's nature and rights, not equality. Equality is based on the equality of opportunity under the condition of equal ability and the equality under the just law, not the absolute equality of social status and wealth. Therefore, equality is a state with many premises, which should not be absolute equality. People generally hold wrong views on the concept of equality. Once this wrong view becomes the mainstream of the society, it will inevitably lead to the spread of socialist thoughts. This is what the United States needs to be particularly vigilant about.

Equality of outcome is not equality at all because it doesn't account for effort, training, investment, or ability. The fact is we are not equal in terms of our abilities and that has nothing to do with race.

 

[Junzhuo Gu]

I think a lot of people end up confused about "natural rights" and "civil rights". They hear "rights" and don't make any additional distinction. It's always important in these discussions to remember that "natural rights" are those that exist exclusive of society. The rights to life, freedom of action and freedom to own the benefits of that action are not dependent on society. Nobody grants those rights but, under certain circumstances, they can be abridged or denied by society. Civil rights are different. These are rights granted by society. The right to human dignity, for example, doesn't exist outside of society and therefore isn't "natural".

However, if the legislation accords with justice, its civil rights and natural rights should be consistent.

 

[COTO]

And people. And retroactively.

That just boggles my mind. Like serfs tied to the land.

I hope people fight it tooth and nail all the way to the SCOTUS and it's struck down like the abomination it is.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

That just boggles my mind. Like serfs tied to the land.

I hope people fight it tooth and nail all the way to the SCOTUS and it's struck down like the abomination it is.

The Supreme Court has upheld retroactive taxes as constitutional in the past (see United States v. Carlton, 1994). The high court has also as recently as 2017 declined to hear an appeal on a retroactive tax scheme from two appellants challenging retroactive tax hikes in Michigan and Washington.

The Court's holding in US v. Carlton may have been slightly weakened by last term's DACA ruling, as people undoubtedly have a reliance interest in tax rates from five years ago remaining as they were and not suddenly being subject to higher rates they have to then find the money to pay. Certainly there is a greater reliance interest in the duly passed statutes of the state and federal governments than there is in a program of questionable (at best) legality invented from whole cloth by a memo issued by a Department secretary without notice and comment. I don't really think the Court will reverse its holding in Carlton based on its DACA ruling, but I think that speaks more to the insanity of that particular ruling than it does the constitutional firmness of Carlton.

 

[dixon01767]

Prop 16 defeated. California manages to retain some sanity.