...[F]or even supposing that such a community were to meet in one place, but that each man had a house of his own, which was in a manner his state, and that they made alliance with one another, but only against evil-doers; still an accurate thinker would not deem this to be a state, if their intercourse with one another was of the same character after as before their union. It is clear then that a state is not a mere society, having a common place, established for the prevention of mutual crime and for the sake of exchange. These are conditions without which a state cannot exist; but all of them together do not constitute a state, which is a community of families and aggregations of families in well-being, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life. Such a community can only be established among those who live in the same place and intermarry. Hence arise in cities family connections, brotherhoods, common sacrifices, amusements which draw men together. But these are created by friendship, for the will to live together is friendship. The end of the state is the good life, and these are the means towards it. And the state is the union of families and villages in a perfect and self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honorable life.I was thinking of communities in which racial or ethnic segregation exists -- can they really be called "communities," except equivocally? In the South, there was no intermarriage allowed, along with minor forms of segregation in public places, segregation of schools, and so on. If members of another group are not treated as members of a political community (and are not slaves or have not been deprived of citizenship or the rights to participate in political life as some punishment), then how can they be subject to the laws of that community? I am not claiming that citizens must explicitly consent to a law before it can be promulgated. But even if they have citizenship and are "represented," if they are not treated as members of the community then isn't there a problem with consistency? (No, since the states were forced by the Federal Government to give blacks the right to vote. But this, along with Reconstruction, and the consequences of the Civil Rights Act, show that attempts by the Federal government to eradicate racism cannot succeed. This must be accomplished from within those societies.)
If, for example, most whites did not want to associate with blacks or treat them as "their own," shouldn't they have let the blacks go their own way, forming their own communities and governments? But in this fallen world, who would let this happen? People want to hold on to their territory, even if they have more than enough land to satisfy their needs. (I'll leave aside the historical question of how many whites were actually racist and how many just acquiesced to the state of things.)
Is there anything more to society within liberal/social contract theory than what Aristotle would call alliances between individuals for mutual benefit? A theory about the origin, nature, and purpose of government that is predicated upon what can be only called barbarism (the acceptance of the moral idiot -- the individual without any deep social ties and obligations -- as the norm) cannot but be deficient.
Or is there more to social contract theory than this?
For more on racial discrimination, see this and this.
