Freedom of Association

[StCapps]

The Best and The Brightest schtick has lost it's appeal, The Rich and Famous schtick, that's in.

Yeah, I'm going to start using how rich I am to win arguments on this forum. There's probably a dozen, "I can do what you did," types who would come at me if I go with accomplishments, but all of them bow down to gold. So, all you "I'm as talented as you are" people, you lose, unless that is, you have more money than me because money is the final arbitrator.

p.s. All you got to do is have 3-digit millions. I was never able to break the $100 million mark.

[Ex-California]

The history of the demise of the Freedom of Association, soon to go the way of the 4th Amendment.

I do believe that's exactly what DeO posted

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Elevator pitch:

Home Depot + Hooters = PROFITS.

Sounds legit. What's your beef?

No beef from me.

[de officiis]

The very idea of Freedom of Association is under attack from the Inclusiveness People. There needs to be a narrative pushback.

Who are the "inclusiveness people" and how are they attacking freedom of association? Are you talking about private action or state action?

BTW, there is no textual reference to "freedom of association" in the first amendment. It was first recognized as a kind of adjunctive right to protect the right to free speech in that amendment. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).

[Martin Hash]

I know, in my podcast I compare it to Privacy, another Supreme Court manufactured Right, but so are Freedom of Movement, and Reproductive Freedom.

[Martin Hash]

“Inclusiveness” is the Cultural Marxist narrative that reverses the focus away from exclusivity, which is a liberty choice, putting the obligation onto the organization and away from the petitioner. It’s not just the protected classes (race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age, disability), the Inclusiveness People want everybody (but White males & child molesters) to be protected.

[de officiis]

“Inclusiveness” is the Cultural Marxist narrative that reverses the focus away from exclusivity, which is a liberty choice, putting the obligation onto the organization and away from the petitioner. It’s not just the protected classes (race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age, disability), the Inclusiveness People want everybody (but White males & child molesters) to be protected.

It’s my sense that these neoMarxist/SJW types view first amendment freedoms as a smokescreen that people they dislike (OWGs) use to hide their desire to discriminate against minorities and other vulnerable groups.

[LVH2]

I tend to see it more as DSL described it. Unions are more exclusive than inclusive. Unless I misunderstand, the problem is that if you work a union job, you have to join the union. Not that too few lesbians with down syndrome are allowed in the union.

The question of unions pits two different versions of free association against each other, and both versions have merit.

Lay out both versions, quick and dirty.

Workers can freely associate themselves into a situation that benefits them.

An individual can decide not to join said free association.

If the second individual is seeking some benefit locked down by the freely associated party that secures that benefit... well, we got ourselves a conflict.

This seems to be it. But if unions don't exist at all, you can't choose to be in one. While if many strong union jobs exist, you can just work non-union jobs.

I don't know about "liberty" but I'd also add that unions existing tend to promote other stepping stones to freedom and/or more choices. Healthcare, the enforcement of labor laws, good wages, job security. These things allow you to do stuff like buy and keep a home, or take vacations.

(but White males & child molesters)

Same thing. Get with the times.

[Martin Hash]

“Inclusiveness” is the Cultural Marxist narrative that reverses the focus away from exclusivity, which is a liberty choice, putting the obligation onto the organization and away from the petitioner. It’s not just the protected classes (race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age, disability), the Inclusiveness People want everybody (but White males & child molesters) to be protected.

It’s my sense that these neoMarxist/SJW types view first amendment freedoms as a smokescreen that people they dislike (OWGs) use to hide their desire to discriminate against minorities and other vulnerable groups.

Of course they do, they’re Marxists: “we’re all in this together so the needs of the group are paramount.”

[Martin Hash]

I don't know about "liberty" but I'd also add that unions existing tend to promote other stepping stones to freedom and/or more choices. Healthcare, the enforcement of labor laws, good wages, job security. These things allow you to do stuff like buy and keep a home, or take vacations.

You know what Benjamin Franklin said about sacrificing liberty.