 |
| |
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
The right to deal
Walter E. Williams (archive)
September 24, 2003 | Print | Send
Suppose you want to deal with me but I don't want to deal with you. Should I be forced to?
You might ask, "What are you talking about?"
Here's a short list. Suppose you want to marry me, but I don't want to marry you. Or, suppose you want to play tennis with me, but I don't want to play with you. Or, suppose you want to be in my club, but neither my fellow club members nor I want you. The question is, how much do we Americans value freedom of association? Keep in mind that freedom of association is a two-way street -- it also implies freedom not to associate.
Suppose a beautiful woman wants to date me, but I don't want to date her. It might be for a good reason, bad reason or no reason at all. Should I be free not to deal with her? Similarly, you might want to come to my party or enroll your children in my private school, but I don't want to deal with you. My refusal might be for any arbitrary reason, including your race, sex or religion, or because I don't like your looks. Should the government force us to associate with those we wish not to associate? Alternatively, should government forbid us from associating with those with whom we wanted to associate?
Let's look at a couple of historical examples. H. L. Mencken, writing in the Dec. 9, 1948, Baltimore Sun, tells of a local ordinance that prohibited interracial tennis games on public courts. More recently, there was the Loving vs. Virginia (1967) case, where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a white man and a black woman who married in violation of Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws. Today, most Americans would be offended by any law that banned blacks and whites from playing tennis together or marrying one another. Wouldn't it be just as offensive were there a law requiring blacks and whites to play tennis together or marry one another?
Isn't there a general principle here? Namely, that if one cherishes freedom of association, is there a logically consistent argument for permitting it in some areas of our lives and not in others? Should employers be forced to hire those they prefer not, or landlords forced to rent to persons they prefer not, or Boy Scouts to admit homosexuals when they prefer not?
One might be tempted to answer by asserting that arbitrary discriminatory association choices in marriage don't have the important socioeconomic effects that other discriminatory choices have. That's dead wrong. Race and income are highly correlated. Whites have higher income than blacks. Only about 5 percent of all marriages are interracial. That means whites marrying other whites makes the income and education distribution more skewed than it would be if there were more interracial marriages. I imagine that most of us would be horrified by the suggestion of mandated marriage diversity.
If an activity is publicly financed, then arbitrary discriminatory association should be prohibited. That would apply to, among other things, public libraries, schools and universities. Private libraries, schools and universities should have complete freedom of association, whether it's discrimination for or against a particular race, sex, religion or any other trait upon which it chooses to associate. Interestingly, Americans who support racial preferences should be the strongest supporters of privatization, but they're not.
The bottom line is that the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he deems acceptable. The true test comes when he's willing to permit others to associate in ways he deems grossly offensive.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...w20030924.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much do you value freedom of association? Do you believe those in government should have the right to decide who you may or may not associate with? Or do you feel you are capable of making that decision for yourself?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If you don't want to let darkies in your house, that's up to you. If you want subsidized access to government (i.e. taxpayer) funded facilities, then TFB. |
Well I think that's what the guy was pretty much saying.
"If an activity is publicly financed, then arbitrary discriminatory association should be prohibited. That would apply to, among other things, public libraries, schools and universities. Private libraries, schools and universities should have complete freedom of association, whether it's discrimination for or against a particular race, sex, religion or any other trait upon which it chooses to associate."
quote:
Boy Scouts of America and other groups ***** about being "private" associations, but they sure expect special treatment in the use of public facilities and accomodations. |
No argument here. The extent of your group's freedom of association is directly proportional to your involvement in government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
The bottom line is that the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he deems acceptable. The true test comes when he's willing to permit others to associate in ways he deems grossly offensive. |
Exactly! Why do we see people insist on the freedom of speech even when the speech is offensive, but that standard doesn't apply to other freedoms like association? But just to quibble, to "permit" others to associate assumes the "permitter" has a valid claim of ownership over these others. This harkens back to the Decl of Independence and the commonly ignored implications of "consent of the governed" - if I cannot consent to you marrying whom you like because I lack a claim of ownership (i.e., it's none of my business), then I cannot consent to government deciding.
quote:
Boy Scouts of America and other groups ***** about being "private" associations, but they sure expect special treatment in the use of public facilities and accomodations. |
quote:
If the organization in question receives money from the government, or makes use of public land, or... I'd have to think this through a bit more... |
Don't we all (except for shut-ins) use public lands and facilities? Don't we all receive money from government? Sure, we pay taxes so most see a net loss, but that's true for the people who make up these organisations too... So why hold them to a different standard? Besides, this is a red herring. Why would I lose my freedom of association if I get more money from government than I pay in taxes? If someone doesn't like that, go after the people giving me money from the treasury. But I'd like to ask Mr Williams how he feels about crack dealers associating with crack users. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
If I want to "rent" a piece of public land for my organization's use at less than market costs, say several hundred acres for a dollar a year, a la many Boy Scout facilities in state or national forest lands, I'm SOL.
If access or exlusive use is granted preferentially to one entity, instead of on a consistent basis to any entity which applies for such use, then you have a problem.
Sure, you can "go after" the elected officials who grant that preferential subsidy, just like the negras could always vote in new people to repeal Jim Crow.
If you have subsidized public access on a purely consistent basis, i.e. the KKK gets the day they apply for if they're first on the list, then NAMBLA, then the Nation of Islam, then White Aryan Resistance, then a Mexican-American racist group, etc. etc., then your argument makes sense. We don't have that, we have a "groups that are acceptable to the majority get preferential access" system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
First, how does this preferential treatment translate into freedom of association? I don't see a connection, it appears to be an excuse to deprive others of their freedom of association.
Second, I agree groups and people should not get preferential treatment, but that's the pols fault. And there just isn't much of a market for "renting" (occasionally) a chunk of forest so it's not like a bunch of other groups are getting shut out. I don't know what was involved in the San Diego case so if the Boy Scouts were basicly handed a piece of land to the exclusion of all others, then I'd have a problem with the pols who set that up.
Jim Crow is not analogous, that too, ironically, was about government violating freedom of association. I'd agree these other groups (NAMBLA?) should be allowed to "rent" space, but it's not like they're really competing with the Boy Scouts which seeks "natural" settings. What if all these groups (and more) had the year booked and individuals couldn't use that land? Would that mean we can now take away their freedom of association too? These are separate issues:
A) Preferential treatment
B) Freedom of association
A != B
Attacking B doesn't solve A, so what's the motive here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
First, how does this preferential treatment translate into freedom of association? I don't see a connection, it appears to be an excuse to deprive others of their freedom of association.
|
Exactly. Those groups that are favored by society get preferential access to public facilities, regardless of their exclusionary policies. Those groups not so favored, well, gee, there's a different set of rules and costs for them.
quote:
Second, I agree groups and people should not get preferential treatment, but that's the pols fault. And there just isn't much of a market for "renting" (occasionally) a chunk of forest so it's not like a bunch of other groups are getting shut out.
|
Actually, in California there's a very big market for prime campground space. And city park land and recreational facilities, etc.
quote:
Jim Crow is not analogous, that too, ironically, was about government violating freedom of association.
|
You mean we really wanted coloreds in our pools and sitting on our toilets and eating next to us in restaurants, but the evil government kept us from being able to mix with darkie? 
Jim Crow was about preferential treatment of exclusion - the majority of whites didn't want "coloreds" using their public facilities, and nobody gave a damn what the coloreds wanted.
quote:
I'd agree these other groups (NAMBLA?) should be allowed to "rent" space, but it's not like they're really competing with the Boy Scouts which seeks "natural" settings.
|
The Boy Scouts and many other groups use far more public facilities than merely remote campgrounds.
quote:
What if all these groups (and more) had the year booked and individuals couldn't use that land? Would that mean we can now take away their freedom of association too? These are separate issues:
|
Nobody's taking away their freedom of association. I don't think the White Aryan Resistance has had to open it's membership to jews, niggers, spics and queers yet. They just aren't entitled to subsidized use of public facilities for which the cost is underwritten by some of the people they exlcude. They are entitled to equal access use (i.e. parade permits, public assembly, etc.)
quote:
A) Preferential treatment
B) Freedom of association
A != B
Attacking B doesn't solve A, so what's the motive here? |
B is not under attack. The Boy Scouts still exclude gays, for one example. The KKK and WAR have their exclusionary rules, as does the Nation of Islam, and all sorts of private groups. The myth that B is under attack is a bogeyman for those groups who want to maintain their "private" rights while getting subsidized, preferential benefits.
Let's say you ran a private association that wanted to rent my land for a particular function, but I didn't like your membership rules - am I obligated to rent to you anyway? Hell, no.
If it's public land, and you meet all the standard public health and safety requirements that are applied to any applicant, and you pay the standard fee charged to any applicant for the same type of use, are you entitled to rent or use the land for that function on the same basis as any other group? Yes. Are you entitled to get a special subsidy that's not customarily available to any other group? No.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I don't think you guys are quite getting the distinction between "public", "open to the public", and private. A facility is public if it is woned by a governmental institution. A facility which may be privately owned, but keeps its doors open to use without paid membership is "open to the public". These two categories of facilities can not refuse to admit or serve someone by virtue of race, religion, or sex according to Supreme Court rulings. Public schools can't discriminate because they are owned by a government. City buses and restaurants can't discriminate because they are generally accessible to the public without the qualification of membership. A private facility is privately owned and is open only to a particular membership. A private facility may be exclusive. A country club can exclude certain people if it is open only to (generally paid) members. There may be even some restrictions on exclusivity, for instance I think that many years ago some country clubs in New Jersey were forced to open their membership to Jews.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
Do it if you're gonna get some.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Give em an inch and they will take a mile... This reminds me of the smoking bans. Now they want to forbid smoking in New York in your own car. Eventually the intrusions have to stop.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
Those are rules right? People shouldn't be allowed to have these as rules. Yet, when some black guy doesn't get into a country club and cries discrimination, they should be ignored because of freedom association. Or when some guy is refused membership to a gym. Or when someone is denied entrance to a club (which happens all the time)... |
Sorry, but if the government decides that nobody can have a club or organisation in which people associate with people like themselves, you don't have free association. What you are advocating is a massive extension of govt power. You suprise me.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-09-2003 23:29
|