Freedom Of Association?

[bonker]

The thing that gets me with decadent Libertarians and their naive ideology, is its tangle of contradictions.

I mean, how does freedom of association work in their half-assed Libertarian Utopia? Are people
allowed, for example, to form clubs and associations that exclude negroes and homos? Or do negroes and
homos have the freedom to join any club?

Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

 

 

[1713254679]

1713254679

[1713254679]

1713254679

[1713254679]

1713254679

[1713254679]

1713254679

[NghtRppr]

The thing that gets me with decadent Libertarians and their naive ideology, is its tangle of contradictions.

I mean, how does freedom of association work in their half-assed Libertarian Utopia? Are people
allowed, for example, to form clubs and associations that exclude negroes and homos? Or do negroes and
homos have the freedom to join any club?

Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

Do I have the freedom to murder you or do you have the freedom to live? Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

You speak about naivety but then you put forth blithely ignorant arguments as absurd as the one I just did.

The only freedom that matters under the law is the freedom to not have people touch your person or property without your permission. If I own a building, it's my building and I can make whatever rules I want. If I say you have to push a peanut across the floor with your nose in order to stay inside, guess what, do it or leave. It's yet another example of the statists inflated sense of entitlement to think that they have the right to go anywhere they want.

So, to answer your question, yes I can form a club or association that excludes based on race or sexual orientation. There's a reason why that would never be a big problem as long as it's a minority opinion but I'm sure logic and reason aren't your cup of tea. You rather foam at the mouth and go "those goram libertarians!"

[myrkul]

The thing that gets me with decadent Libertarians and their naive ideology, is its tangle of contradictions.

I mean, how does freedom of association work in their half-assed Libertarian Utopia? Are people
allowed, for example, to form clubs and associations that exclude negroes and homos? Or do negroes and
homos have the freedom to join any club?

Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

First, let me congratulate you on managing to offend BOTH sides of the argument, that takes real skill.

Secondly, you seem to miss the point. What homosexual or black would WANT to associate with bigots?
also, it is not infringing upon someone's liberty to say to them, No, you can not come in.

See? no contradiction.

[bonker]

The thing that gets me with decadent Libertarians and their naive ideology, is its tangle of contradictions.

I mean, how does freedom of association work in their half-assed Libertarian Utopia? Are people
allowed, for example, to form clubs and associations that exclude negroes and homos? Or do negroes and
homos have the freedom to join any club?

Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

Do I have the freedom to murder you or do you have the freedom to live? Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

You speak about naivety but then you put forth blithely ignorant arguments as absurd as the one I just did.

The only freedom that matters under the law is the freedom to not have people touch your person or property without your permission. If I own a building, it's my building and I can make whatever rules I want. If I say you have to push a peanut across the floor with your nose in order to stay inside, guess what, do it or leave. It's yet another example of the statists inflated sense of entitlement to think that they have the right to go anywhere they want.

So, to answer your question, yes I can form a club or association that excludes based on race or sexual orientation. There's a reason why that would never be a big problem as long as it's a minority opinion but I'm sure logic and reason aren't your cup of tea. You rather foam at the mouth and go "those goram libertarians!"

Please enlighten me further. As a Libertarian, you say we will be allowed to freely associate and form clubs that
discriminate against homos and negros. But surely that exclusion infringes the liberties of the homos and negroes left
standing at locked gates?

I mean, don't the boundaries of these extended anti-negro/homo areas constitute a border of sorts? Didn't you wise Libertarians
abolish boundaries and borders?

[NghtRppr]

Didn't you wise Libertarians
abolish boundaries and borders?

So let me get this straight, you think that in a libertarian society I won't be able to own a home and lock people out of it? I'll just have to allow people to come and go as freely as the wind? Is that what you really think?

[myrkul]

Please enlighten me further. As a Libertarian, you say we will be allowed to freely associate and form clubs that
discriminate against homos and negros. But surely that exclusion infringes the liberties of the homos and negroes left
standing at locked gates?

No.

I mean, don't the boundaries of these extended anti-negro/homo areas constitute a border of sorts? Didn't you wise Libertarians
abolish boundaries and borders?

Two words: Private property.

Use a dictionary, if you don't follow.

[bonker]

First, let me congratulate you on managing to offend BOTH sides of the argument, that takes real skill.

Thanks!

Secondly, you seem to miss the point. What homosexual or black would WANT to associate with bigots?
also, it is not infringing upon someone's liberty to say to them, No, you can not come in.

See? no contradiction.

But in the situation in which Whitey is having a really great party, but no negros/homos are allowed in. Or say, whitey
has a great farm with great food, but doesn't want negros/homos hanging around his BBQ. it's an entirely realistic situation.

Freedom of association is a legitimate freedom that inevitably restricts the liberty of others, usually based upon the
sacred cow delineations of race, gender and orientation.

So what does the wise Libertarian Council of Elders do?

[bonker]

Didn't you wise Libertarians
abolish boundaries and borders?

So let me get this straight, you think that in a libertarian society I won't be able to own a home and lock people out of it? I'll just have to allow people to come and go as freely as the wind? Is that what you really think?

No, that interpretation has missed the point entirely. The question is one of freedom of association. For example, the introduction of a system of apartheid.

Just trying to illustrate how Libertarians struggle with very simple problems.

[myrkul]

So what does the wise Libertarian Council of Elders do?

Absolutely nothing. Whitey is free to have his BBQ, on his private property, free from whatever external influences he wants.

Just trying to illustrate how Libertarians struggle with very simple problems.

No, very simple people struggle to understand the solutions.

[NghtRppr]

Didn't you wise Libertarians
abolish boundaries and borders?

So let me get this straight, you think that in a libertarian society I won't be able to own a home and lock people out of it? I'll just have to allow people to come and go as freely as the wind? Is that what you really think?

No

So if I own a home, I can lock people out. Fine. Now let's say that I only allow certain people in, perhaps only family, perhaps only white people, perhaps only homosexuals, at the end of the day, it's my house and if I want to lock people out of it, it's my right. You don't have a right to barge into my home so I'm not infringing your rights by locking you out.

The same applies to all private property, a club, a grocery store, a dirt road I own. You already agree with me but you are incapable of following the logic.

[bonker]

So what does the wise Libertarian Council of Elders do?

Absolutely nothing. Whitey is free to have his BBQ, on his private property, free from whatever external influences he wants.

Just trying to illustrate how Libertarians struggle with very simple problems.

No, very simple people struggle to understand the solutions.

Thank you, you are progressing the argument. Presumably, this extends to whites only, schools, busses and housing areas and shopping malls?
All private property, naturally.

[NghtRppr]

All private property, naturally.

Yes, in a libertarian society, there won't be any public property.

[JoelKatz]

Freedom of association is a legitimate freedom that inevitably restricts the liberty of others, usually based upon the sacred cow delineations of race, gender and orientation.

So what does the wise Libertarian Council of Elders do?

The Libertarian position is that if you want to open a whites only restaurant, that is your right. But if I want to boycott your restaurant, and even boycott everyone who ever goes into your restaurant, that's my right too.

I can even boycott people who don't boycott you. I can boycott your suppliers, your employees -- I can even boycott their families, people who employ members of their families, and so on, if I really don't like your business. See how long a whites only restaurant lasts in a Libertarian society as decent people isolate themselves from everyone associated with it.

And, by the way, our society permits the Boy Scouts to exclude atheists.

[ascent]

Mostly I agree with the Libs' arguments here, but as usual, they don't completely grasp the full nature of what they're proposing. As an example, let's say I own a parcel of land. Who and what owns the parcels of land on all sides of me? What if they have obscure rules regarding entry onto their property? I'd be totally screwed. In other words - their system is lame, despite the fact that I agree with what they're saying about private property.

[myrkul]

Thank you, you are progressing the argument. Presumably, this extends to whites only, schools, busses and housing areas and shopping malls?
All private property, naturally.

Yup. and Black only, and Hispanic only, and female only, and Gay only. It's private property, so the owners can set whatever rules they want.

[ascent]

Imagine if I bought the land on all sides of myrkul. I could have some fun, then.

[JoelKatz]

Mostly I agree with the Libs' arguments here, but as usual, they don't completely grasp the full nature of what they're proposing. As an example, let's say I own a parcel of land. Who and what owns the parcels of land on all sides of me? What if they have obscure rules regarding entry onto their property? I'd be totally screwed. In other words - their system is lame, despite the fact that I agree with what they're saying about private property.

Unless you're not particularly bright, you wouldn't buy a parcel of property that didn't include easements to permit yourself access to your own land.

There are many libertarians who believe that private property doesn't include the right to exclude others from reasonably traversing your land to the extent reasonably necessary to get to other parcels of land. Rights to private property generally don't include the right to do things to or with your land that unreasonably prevent other people from the peaceful enjoyment of their land.

A reasonably-maintained perimeter road would meet this requirement. It doesn't significantly affect your privacy or ability to use your land.

[NghtRppr]

Mostly I agree with the Libs' arguments here, but as usual, they don't completely grasp the full nature of what they're proposing. As an example, let's say I own a parcel of land. Who and what owns the parcels of land on all sides of me? What if they have obscure rules regarding entry onto their property? I'd be totally screwed. In other words - their system is lame, despite the fact that I agree with what they're saying about private property.

Yet again, we have a statist calling a system ignorant because of some objection he thought of after a few seconds, disregarding the fact that plenty of libertarians, much smarter than he and I have already come up with the same objection and figured out a response.

You're talking about homesteading a donut shaped parcel of land around some unowned parcel of land. You can't do that in the first place. However, if you were to homestead a parcel of land and then try to sell the center of a donut to someone, nobody would buy it unless there was a contract granting access. Just like you have title insurance when buying a house, you would have access insurance, to make sure you can actually get out of the driveway of the $200,000 home you just bought.

Seriously, read some books before you start hurling insults. It only makes you look ignorant. You won't convince any libertarian that's done their homework with hamfisted arguments.

[bonker]

Freedom of association is a legitimate freedom that inevitably restricts the liberty of others, usually based upon the sacred cow delineations of race, gender and orientation.

So what does the wise Libertarian Council of Elders do?

The Libertarian position is that if you want to open a whites only restaurant, that is your right. But if I want to boycott your restaurant, and even boycott everyone who ever goes into your restaurant, that's my right too.

I can even boycott people who don't boycott you. I can boycott your suppliers, your employees -- I can even boycott their families, people who employee members of their families, and so on, if I really don't like your business. See how long a whites only restaurant lasts in a Libertarian society as decent people isolate themselves from everyone associated with it.

That's quite a confrontational attitude. On the assumption that not all people think the same, there may well be considerable support for a whites only restaurant.
Which, I suppose, naturally leads to how a Libertarian society deals with conflicts. Presumably, its just left to sort itself out, as seems to be the pattern with you
dreamy folk.

[ascent]

You're talking about homesteading a donut shaped parcel of land around some unowned parcel of land. You can't do that in the first place. However, if you were to homestead a parcel of land and then try to sell the center of a donut to someone, nobody would buy it unless there was a contract granting access. Just like you have title insurance when buying a house, you would have access insurance, to make sure you can actually get out of the driveway of the $200,000 home you just bought.

You don't get it, do you? Try harder.