Thread Tools
Old September 24, 2003, 14:29   #1
Caligastia
Emperor
 
Caligastia's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,402
Do you value freedom of association?
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/w...20030924.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?
__________________
...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty
Caligastia is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 14:34   #2
MichaeltheGreat
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Apolyton Grand Executioner
 
MichaeltheGreat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fenway Pahk
Posts: 1,755
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.

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.
__________________
Bush-Cheney 2008. What's another amendment between friends?
*******
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all.
MichaeltheGreat is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 14:36   #3
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
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... but anyway, the answer is yes.

If, on the other hand, you have a private club that gets nothing from the government or public at large, then they can include or exclude whomever they wish, even if that makes them *******s.

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 14:36   #4
chequita guevara
ACDG The Human HiveDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
chequita guevara's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Fort LOLderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Posts: 9,091
What MtG said.
__________________
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
chequita guevara is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 14:40   #5
Sirotnikov
DiplomacyApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization III Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Sirotnikov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,138
I think I go with MTG.

Private associations should be able to choose their members. It sucks, but it's the way it is.

Non-private associations should not be able to choose their members, as they represent the local or federal government in some way, and thus belong to all the people.
Sirotnikov is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 14:52   #6
Caligastia
Emperor
 
Caligastia's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,402
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.
__________________
...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty
Caligastia is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 15:31   #7
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
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.
Berzerker is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 15:36   #8
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
I was thinking along the lines of an "either or" proposition:

Want government money, or tax exemption, or... again, I'd have to think about it more than I'm willing to right now... Fine, then accept what the government favors in terms of your association rights (so let in those dirty XYZs). Or, if you don't want those dirty XYZs, then no special stuff from the government for you.

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 15:38   #9
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Oh, to answer the question - most people value the illegitimate power to decide who gets to associate with whom more than any value they allegedly place of the freedom of association.
Berzerker is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 15:42   #10
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
Want government money, or tax exemption, or... again, I'd have to think about it more than I'm willing to right now... Fine, then accept what the government favors in terms of your association rights (so let in those dirty XYZs). Or, if you don't want those dirty XYZs, then no special stuff from the government for you.
Why? Where's the connection between a subsidy or tax exemption and freedom of association? Isn't that just an excuse to take away someone's freedom of association based on your personal preferences? And where do you draw the line? Don't we all use public lands and get government benefits? What you seem to be saying is: if I pay a tax and you get a subsidy, I get to waltz into your life and start making your decisions.
Berzerker is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 16:08   #11
MichaeltheGreat
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Apolyton Grand Executioner
 
MichaeltheGreat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fenway Pahk
Posts: 1,755
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.
__________________
Bush-Cheney 2008. What's another amendment between friends?
*******
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all.
MichaeltheGreat is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 16:24   #12
Japher
Emperor
 
Japher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mu Mu Land
Posts: 6,570
Being forced to work with/for someone
Being forced to not work with/for someone

That's tough.

Even you are a private firm you would be wise, in most cases, to behave according to decrees on public firms.

I think free association should exist even more so amongst companies and organizations both private and public, and that if a Co. or Org. does not wish to comply with government requests then funding should be denied or withdrawn as it is done at the state levels... and then, let the public handle it.

I think some of the arguments are little out dated and misleading. Yet, the government should stay out of my life as much as possible and just do what I pay them to do. If I choose not to serve black people at my restaurant than the government should honor my request... This doesn't mean that I should be suprised when my buisness becomes the target for hate crimes and I am forced out of buisness because of it.
__________________
Monkey!!!
Japher is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 16:28   #13
Hueij
Emperor
 
Hueij's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Kokonino Kounty
Posts: 4,263
Why are people still replying in a Cali race thread?
__________________
Within weeks they'll be re-opening the shipyards
And notifying the next of kin
Once again...
Hueij is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 16:40   #14
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
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?
Berzerker is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 16:47   #15
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
If I choose not to serve black people at my restaurant than the government should honor my request... This doesn't mean that I should be suprised when my buisness becomes the target for hate crimes and I am forced out of buisness because of it.
The moral approach would be to boycott the business, unfortunately, many seek the easy and hypocritical approach and simply ban "discrimination" only when it offends them. As the author points out, the true test is not allowing freedom of association when you agree with the association, but even when it is offensive.
Berzerker is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 17:14   #16
Japher
Emperor
 
Japher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mu Mu Land
Posts: 6,570
Quote:
the true test is not allowing freedom of association when you agree with the association, but even when it is offensive
Yes, that is the true test. Yet it should not be the job of the government to tipy-toe around issues for the sake of not offending someone.

Am I offended that "Curves" doesn't allow men to join? -No. Could I be? - Yes.

When does someone becoming offended become more of a perpetuate nuissance than an actual complaint?

Instituitions naturally generate avoidance issues by generating advertisment and facilities towards their tageted audiences. While some rules are needed to ensure the targeted audience and promise to the customer, rules that govern restrictions on who is actually being targeted as per services offered, should be wiped out.

Men only and Women only Black only White only... all these things should be illegal.

Heck, the gay community has it right. I don't go to certain bars or clubs because they are considered gay bars. Do these bars or clubs advertise that they are gay establishments? No! Do they bar straight people from coming? No! So where's the problem? Or, rather, what are they doing right?
__________________
Monkey!!!
Japher is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 17:21   #17
Caligastia
Emperor
 
Caligastia's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,402
Quote:
Originally posted by Japher


Yes, that is the true test. Yet it should not be the job of the government to tipy-toe around issues for the sake of not offending someone.

Am I offended that "Curves" doesn't allow men to join? -No. Could I be? - Yes.

When does someone becoming offended become more of a perpetuate nuissance than an actual complaint?

Instituitions naturally generate avoidance issues by generating advertisment and facilities towards their tageted audiences. While some rules are needed to ensure the targeted audience and promise to the customer, rules that govern restrictions on who is actually being targeted as per services offered, should be wiped out.

Men only and Women only Black only White only... all these things should be illegal.

Heck, the gay community has it right. I don't go to certain bars or clubs because they are considered gay bars. Do these bars or clubs advertise that they are gay establishments? No! Do they bar straight people from coming? No! So where's the problem? Or, rather, what are they doing right?
This is quite a confusing post Japher. At the beginning you seem to support freedom of association, but then you say "Men only and Women only Black only White only... all these things should be illegal.".

Which is it?
__________________
...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty
Caligastia is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 17:32   #18
Japher
Emperor
 
Japher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mu Mu Land
Posts: 6,570
Quote:
rules that govern restrictions on who is actually being targeted as per services offered, should be wiped out
Quote:
Men only and Women only Black only White only...
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)...
__________________
Monkey!!!
Japher is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 18:17   #19
Ben Kenobi
Civilization II Democracy GameCivilization II Succession GamesCivilization II Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 18,269
Quote:
the true test is not allowing freedom of association when you agree with the association, but even when it is offensive.
Well said Berz. I wish Canada had an amendment protecting freedom of association.
__________________
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette and Adam Smith you will be missed
"All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - JRR Tolkein
Get busy living or get busy dying.
Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 18:42   #20
MichaeltheGreat
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Apolyton Grand Executioner
 
MichaeltheGreat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fenway Pahk
Posts: 1,755
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.
__________________
Bush-Cheney 2008. What's another amendment between friends?
*******
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all.
MichaeltheGreat is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 18:57   #21
Dr Strangelove
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: USA
Posts: 3,197
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.
__________________
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Dr Strangelove is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 20:12   #22
st_swithin
CTP1/2 GODDESS
 
Local Time: 09:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 10069
Posts: 198
Do it if you're gonna get some.
st_swithin is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 21:42   #23
MrFun
Emperor
 
MrFun's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally posted by Hueij
Why are people still replying in a Cali race thread?
We respond, because this is when Callie gets on stage, giving us the opportunity to throw tomatoes at him.
__________________
STFU and then GTFO!
MrFun is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 21:56   #24
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
MtG - I can't disagree with most of your comments

However, freedom of association has been under attack for decades and the targets are gradually expanding beyond businesses and anti-discrimination laws.
Berzerker is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 22:12   #25
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 09:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
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.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 22:33   #26
Caligastia
Emperor
 
Caligastia's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,402
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.
__________________
...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty
Caligastia is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 22:58   #27
MrFun
Emperor
 
MrFun's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,595
** throws tomatoes at Cal **
__________________
STFU and then GTFO!
MrFun is offline  
Old September 24, 2003, 23:51   #28
Rex Little
Prince
 
Local Time: 09:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 912
Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
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?
I'm sure there were some who would have been willing to open their restaurants or other facilities to blacks, but were prevented by law from doing so. Not a lot, but some. Why bother to have a law requiring exclusion if the desire to exclude was unanimous?
__________________
"THE" plus "IRS" makes "THEIRS". Coincidence? I think not.
Rex Little is offline  
Old September 25, 2003, 03:18   #29
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Does freedom of association apply to organisations as well? It seems that these "rights" and "freedoms" are applicable to individuals only.
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old September 25, 2003, 04:09   #30
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:13
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Organisations are made up of individuals exercising their freedom of association.
Berzerker is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team