Freedom of Association

[StCapps]

CLASS WARFARE REEEEEEEEEE

(Don't make the obvious conclusions based on race)

Race is irrelevant, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

[Fife]

https://mises.org/library/freedom-association

This is precisely why libertarians were right to oppose these provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They strike at the heart of freedom, and with an extremely high social cost. One is not surprised that thoughtless and anti-intellectual organs of opinion would seek to deny this. But what has surprised me is the speed with which supposed libertarians, especially in the ambit of DC, have been quick to distance themselves from the principle of the freedom of association. I take this not as a measure of intellectual bankruptcy, but as a sign of the fear that so many in an age of despotic control have of speaking truth to power.

[TheReal_ND]

CLASS WARFARE REEEEEEEEEE

(Don't make the obvious conclusions based on race)

Race is irrelevant, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

(You)

[StCapps]

CLASS WARFARE REEEEEEEEEE

(Don't make the obvious conclusions based on race)

Race is irrelevant, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

(You)

Little nukedog just wants a Maquis of his very own, how'd that work out again?


I'd stick with the Quebec model, if I was you, the Dominion doesn't fuck around.
/shrugs

[TheReal_ND]

Race is irrelevant, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

(You)

Little nukedog just wants a Maquis of his very own, how'd that work out again?


I'd stick with the Quebec model, if I was you, the Dominion doesn't fuck around.
/shrugs

(You)

[StCapps]

Simmer down Eddington, or the Cardassian's will sic the Dominion on you. Pan-White Ethno State in America via succession, they'll just send the Jem' Hadar in, kind of like last time something similar was attempted. Get that Notwithstanding Clause though, and maybe you won't have to fight a Civil War, then maybe you can have your cake, and eat it too. Like I said, the Quebec model, that's the way to go, there's no need to champion the SIFCLF-R "civil war redux" model.

[Martin Hash]

The world is full of loathsome, stupid, and irritating people.

As far as I know, you are still allowed to freely not associate with them by being a shut in.

You mean in a closet?

It would be useful for you to describe in detail the limitations you must place on yourself due to other people, anti-liberty.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The world is full of loathsome, stupid, and irritating people.

As far as I know, you are still allowed to freely not associate with them by being a shut in.

You mean in a closet?

It would be useful for you to describe in detail the limitations you must place on yourself due to other people, anti-liberty.

Me personally? It would take quite a lot for me to avoid all of the people who irritate me. Fortunately, I am at liberty to choose the strictures of a closet and the freedom from morons, or the association of morons and the freedom to interact with the world.

The question is really: do you have the liberty to keep people from freely associating with you?

[Martin Hash]

The question is really: do you have the liberty to keep people from freely associating with you?

Yes, that is the OP. Currently, the answer is "no, that Right is gone."

The doctrine of Inclusiveness denies you that opportunity at risk of social censure and worse.

[de officiis]

Freedom of association, as protected by First and Fourteenth Amendments, is not absolute either in sense that where constitutional protection exists it must prevail or in sense that scope of protection must be gathered solely from literal meaning of First Amendment. Konigsberg v State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961)

Right to associate is not absolute in any event. United States Civil Service Comm'n v National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973)

Under Federal Constitution's First Amendment, freedom of expressive association--like many freedoms--is not absolute. BSA v Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)

On the present record, there is no more an infringement or impairment of First Amendment rights than there would be in the case of a lawyer who by state law is required to be a member of an integrated bar. It is argued that compulsory membership will be used to impair freedom of expression. But that problem is not presented by this record. Congress endeavored to safeguard against that possibility by making explicit that no conditions to membership may be imposed except as respects "periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments." If other conditions are in fact imposed, or if the exaction of dues, initiation fees, or assessments is used as a cover for forcing ideological conformity or other action in contravention of the First Amendment, this judgment will not prejudice the decision in that case. For we pass narrowly on § 2, Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act. We only hold that the requirement for financial support of the collective-bargaining agency by all who receive the benefits of its work is within the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause and does not violate either the First or the Fifth Amendments. We express no opinion on the use of other conditions to secure or maintain membership in a labor organization operating under a union or closed shop agreement.

- Railway Employees' Dep't v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956)