Freedom of Association

[Libertaurum]

Great article by Lew Rockwell.

"It seems incredible that in the last days, a fundamental right of the whole of humanity, the freedom of association, has been denounced by the New York Times and all major opinion sources, even as a national political figure was reluctant to defend his own statements in favor of the idea, and then distanced himself from the notion. Has such a fundamental principle of liberty become unsayable?

Or perhaps it is not so incredible. An overweening government, in an age of despotism such as ours, must deny such a fundamental right simply because it is one of those core issues that speaks to who is in charge: the state or individuals.

We live in antiliberal times, when individual choice is highly suspect. The driving legislative ethos is toward making all actions required or forbidden, with less and less room for human volition. Simply put, we no longer trust the idea of freedom. We can't even imagine how it would work. What a distance we have traveled from the Age of Reason to our own times.

...

And this is precisely why racialists, nationalists, and hard-core bigots have always opposed liberal capitalism: it includes and excludes based on the cash nexus and without regard to features that collectivists of all sorts regard as important. In the imagined utopias of the national socialists, the champions of commerce are hanged from lampposts as race traitors and enemies of the nation.

That's because the market tends toward an ever-evolving, ever-changing tapestry of association, with patterns that cannot be known in advance and should not be regulated by federal masters. In contrast, government's attempts to regulate association lead to disorder and social calamities.

..."

(my bold)

Racialists, nationalists and collectivists of all types, as Rockwell says, oppose liberal capitalism because it disregards considerations that collectivists not only value, but would love to impose on everyone else by force. The reference to hanging those who support freedom from lampposts as traitors is not in vain; we've seen it here multiple times. Some posters openly support the idea that people should be judged as traitors for engaging in voluntary trades with others, whether it is by selling drugs, hiring illegals, taking their private property out of the country or buying imports.

Collectivists pretend to intimidate those who support freedom by openly calling for them to be killed. This should be, in itself, proof of how irrational and indefensible their position really is.

JMO

More...

http://mises.org/daily/4465/Freedom-of-Association

[Bigfoot]

Here's an interesting article from Cato.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/irb/irb_august2010.pdf

[Libertaurum]

Here's an interesting article from Cato.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/irb/irb_august2010.pdf

Interesting indeed. From the article:

***

...

NATIVE VS. IMMIGRANT USE OF WELFARE
An analysis of Census data released by the
House Ways and Means Committee indicate
the proportion of natives, non-citizens and
naturalized citizens who use AFDC/TANF
(Aid to Families with Dependent Children/
Temporary Assistance for Needy Children),
Medicaid and food stamps is similar for the
three groups. More important, the data show
the vast majority of immigrants are not
receiving these types of public benefits. Less
than 1 percent of naturalized citizens and
non-citizens in 2006 received benefits under
TANF. 7
The data tell the story:
• In 2006, 0.6 percent of natives used
AFDC/TANF, compared to 0.3 percent
of naturalized citizens and 0.7 percent
for non-citizens.
• For Medicaid: 13.1 percent of natives
used Medicaid, compared to 10.8 percent
of naturalized citizens and 11.6
percent of non-citizens.
• For SSI, which most natives would not
use because they are eligible for Social
Security benefits, 1.6 percent of natives
used SSI (Supplemental Security
Income) in 2006, compared to 3.0 percent
of naturalized citizens and 1.3 percent
of non-citizens. (See Table 7.1.)
• And 7.7 percent of natives used the
Food Stamp program, compared to 3.9
percent of naturalized citizens and 6.2
percent of non-citizens.

***

The irrational opposition to free labor markets is usually rooted in irrational biases and prejudices. Emotion vs reason.

[Libertaurum]

Some... support the idea that people should be judged as traitors for engaging in voluntary trades with others, whether it is by selling drugs, hiring illegals, taking their private property out of the country or buying imports.

Still think it could be interesting to consider how one could justify or explain the seemingly fundamental contradiction implied in supporting freedom of association as a general principle while at the same time opposing it in some particular instance, such as one of those mentioned above.

Bueller?

[hoarder]

Using vague language, Biglib pretends to champion freedom of association while he opposes it.

[Po'boy]

Still think it could be interesting to consider how one could justify or explain the seemingly fundamental contradiction implied in supporting freedom of association as a general principle while at the same time opposing it in some particular instance, such as one of those mentioned above.

Bueller?

I think that comes under commerce art 1 section eight.

They just take the rights turn them to privilege through regulation.

Limited liability is what people want regulation is what is given along un payable debt to grandchildren.

[Carl]

I love Freedom of Association.

The freedom to, or not to, associate between individuals. The freedom to form clubs, communities, towns, cities, counties, states and even a nation based within the fundamental right to, or not to, associate with whomever we chose. "We the people" who form the association known as the "United States", reserve the right to refuse or limit admittance into our association, we reserve the right to refuse or limit commercial activities that would cause us economic harm.

I love freedom of association, it is the core of our Republic and it works at every level!

[All-in]

I love Freedom of Association.

The freedom to, or not to, associate between individuals. The freedom to form clubs, communities, towns, cities, counties, states and even a nation based within the fundamental right to, or not to, associate with whomever we chose. "We the people" who form the association known as the "United States", reserve the right to refuse or limit admittance into our association, we reserve the right to refuse or limit commercial activities that would cause us economic harm.

I love freedom of association, it is the core of our Republic and it works at every level!

Yes it's brilliant, especially from a political party point of view where you force others to go with YOUR association. If associations can be kept to those that belong to that association, then i'm fine. Religion is an other association that uses it's influence to bring a certain structure to our lives.

Take Scotland and i being born in scotland which makes me Scottish (duh), and by birth it makes me an automatic member of such an association. One which i want no part in (for good reasons, the landscape is brilliant but the people suck). Failure to participate or **** off (as in go elsewhere) leaves me open to be punished. Great ehh?

True freedom of association is the ability to choose to be part of an association or not be a part of it. In some instances on your list, there is no choice!

[Po'boy]

Freedom of Association is a right to self determination.

Doesn't everyone have that right since geneva?

[hoarder]

True freedom of association is the right of groups to selectively exclude others from their associations, which includes schools and subdivisions.

[Libertaurum]

I love Freedom of Association.

The freedom to, or not to, associate between individuals. The freedom to form clubs, communities, towns, cities, counties, states and even a nation based within the fundamental right to, or not to, associate with whomever we chose.

Who do you believe you represent when you say "we"?

"We the people" who form the association known as the "United States", reserve the right to refuse or limit admittance into our association, we reserve the right to refuse or limit commercial activities that would cause us economic harm.

I love freedom of association, it is the core of our Republic and it works at every level!

Individuals have natural rights. The right to freely associate and trade with others free from coercion is one of those rights.

When you decide to trade with someone or hire someone, it isn't all of the US buying something or hiring someone. It isn't a collective decision. It's just you.

When someone else decides to hire an illegal or buy an import, it isn't your decision or anyone else's. Precisely because that individual also has a right to freely associate, he doesn't need your permission, or even the collective's permission, to do so.

Freedom of association is an individual right, not a collective right.

You certainly have a right to form any kind of association you like and to exclude from your PRIVATE PROPERTY anyone you like. All those who may choose to join have that right as well. But your rights don't entitle you to exclude anyone from any property beside yours, or to prevent others from trading freely with anyone they like or to prevent them from hiring anyone they want.