26 September 2005

Freedom Of Association

This meme comes and goes.

The freedom TO associate with someone INCLUDES the freedom to exclude someone too. It is most obvious when you associate with two groups that are mutually exclusive. Your association with one will exclude you from the other.

Freedom and voluntary are intertwined. If you force me to INCLUDE persons that I do not want to associate with, that eliminates my freedom to choose my own associations.

Case in point: Forcing the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuals when they don't wish to have homosexuals as members/leaders/etc. It sometimes takes a slightly different perspective to put this evil to light. If the BSA must accept gays, the NAACP must accept KKK members (Grand Wizard of the NAACP?), Jewish organizations must accept Neo-Nazis, Sara Brady must accept gun-owners AND vice versa. See how this works? And nice double standards too. Why are some organizations allowed to discriminate and others not?

That might have been too subtle. If you find yourself excluded, make your own organization that emulates everything that you like about the organization that excludes you. The Pink Pistols comes to mind.

And this doesn't even touch on the thread of why your stupid ass wants to be someplace you aren't welcome. Sounds like pain at the minimum. Just imagine for a second what happens to the charter black KKK member. Or what is happening to your gay son at Scout camp. Children are the cruelist form of human life.

And for the record, I think the BSA excluding gays is a stupid decision, but they have every right to make it. You disagree with them, don't enroll your children, form your own youth organization.

Try to remember, you have every right to hate. You do not have a right to use your hate to infringe on another's rights. To borrow from witchery, "Do as you will, harm none."

Yes, my philosophy allows a town to gang up and say "No blacks". Just don't forget the signs, I want to avoid doing business with your racist asses. The same mechanism that limits the length of your grass, what color you paint your house or how many derelict cars can be on the property works here; deed restrictions. Notice also, that if the restrictions are too onerous, the property loses value. This is a self correcting issue unless the people in favor of the restrictions are dedicated, or if the restriction is popular.

And nothing in my philosophy says that there cannot be a town that gangs up and says "No whites"! Just don't forget the signs, I want to avoid doing business with your racist asses.

Equal under the law, biased under contract is fine by me. As long as the contracts are administered in the same manner. But as long as the NAACP can exclude whites, the BSA should be able to exclude gays. And as long as neither opens a death camp or somehow prevents the formation of National Association for the Advancement of White People (and they have, haven't they?) or the Flaming Campfire Boys (feel free to use that one) there really isn't a rights problem.

True understanding of this issue comes with understanding of positive and negative rights.


Someone is bound to bring up public funding.

My opinion on this is either fund anyone who asks and let them run it however they want, or fund nobody.

I lean more towards fund nobody.

And since the gubmint seems to think that if they give me any money, they get 100% control of how I spend all of my money, I'd just assume go without the "help" anyway.

No comments:

Post a Comment

You are a guest here when you comment. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work.

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.