Is There a 'Right of Association'?

[William Joyce]

Article spells out the case:

Right of Association by Christopher Donovan

As far as simple secular morality goes, I see no issue with one group of people voluntarily and non-violently disassociating themselves from others. Nothing is owed in either direction. No physical harm befalls anyone. Theft, cheating, deception, sexual impropriety, insults, trespass – none of the standard moral issues are implicated. A man who dates and is later rejected by a woman has zero moral claim against her: she has, however painfully to him, decided to move in another direction. She has chosen her own destiny. Nobody questions her decision. No lawyer files a lawsuit on his behalf, no editorials are written, no criminal charges filed, no inquest is held. It is simply the rhythm of freedom.

If there is a relationship comparison to the racial morass, it may be that of a couple needing a divorce. In securing the separation, there are tricky issues to be dealt with, and there are costs and adjustments made, most of which take getting used to. But the result – assuming a sound decision to get the divorce in the first place – is typically worth it. The white race needs a divorce.

There is simply no moral imperative for forced racial association. The current white morality, which holds whites responsible for every last primitive in the South American jungle and subsistence farmer in southeast Asia, is laughably incorrect. Moral regard should radiate outward in concentric circles, with immediate family first, race next, and others beyond that. Garrett Hardin recognized as much with his observation of “promiscuous altruism”. We currently have it backward: we consider the starving African child a more pressing issue than the fact that the white child doesn’t even exist because we refuse to marry and have children. The current state of multiracialism is due to a precious few – and transitory – factors: slavery and uncontrolled immigration. These are temporary and can be reversed. No human group has an unending right to the material support provided by any other group, yet this is the only notion supporting the rickety, rotten infrastructure of the forced multiracial society.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Article spells out the case:

Right of Association by Christopher Donovan

As far as simple secular morality goes, I see no issue with one group of people voluntarily and non-violently disassociating themselves from others. Nothing is owed in either direction. No physical harm befalls anyone. Theft, cheating, deception, sexual impropriety, insults, trespass – none of the standard moral issues are implicated. A man who dates and is later rejected by a woman has zero moral claim against her: she has, however painfully to him, decided to move in another direction. She has chosen her own destiny. Nobody questions her decision. No lawyer files a lawsuit on his behalf, no editorials are written, no criminal charges filed, no inquest is held. It is simply the rhythm of freedom.

If there is a relationship comparison to the racial morass, it may be that of a couple needing a divorce. In securing the separation, there are tricky issues to be dealt with, and there are costs and adjustments made, most of which take getting used to. But the result – assuming a sound decision to get the divorce in the first place – is typically worth it. The white race needs a divorce.

There is simply no moral imperative for forced racial association. The current white morality, which holds whites responsible for every last primitive in the South American jungle and subsistence farmer in southeast Asia, is laughably incorrect. Moral regard should radiate outward in concentric circles, with immediate family first, race next, and others beyond that. Garrett Hardin recognized as much with his observation of “promiscuous altruism”. We currently have it backward: we consider the starving African child a more pressing issue than the fact that the white child doesn’t even exist because we refuse to marry and have children. The current state of multiracialism is due to a precious few – and transitory – factors: slavery and uncontrolled immigration. These are temporary and can be reversed. No human group has an unending right to the material support provided by any other group, yet this is the only notion supporting the rickety, rotten infrastructure of the forced multiracial society.

That would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. We share the same government, the same neighborhoods, the same schools, the same libraries, the same doctors and hospitals, the same military, the same law enforcement, the same roads and bridges, the same churches, the same utilities, breath the same air, share the environment and resources, shop at the same stores, eat at the same restaurants, vacation on the same beaches, drink the same water, and many other common grounds.

 

[usfan]

This is #1 in the bill of rights, lumped in with freedom of religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It should be obvious, that the right to 'peaceably assemble' carries with it the same right to 'peaceably disassemble'.

I'm not sure how the racial part fits in.. i see a bit of the point of the OP in the PC obsession with race & 'white privilege', but i don't think there is any move to force association other than in the civil rights arena. You can choose, individually, to not associate with someone because of race, but not in business, contracts, or other collective actions.

 

[Sonny Clark]

This is #1 in the bill of rights, lumped in with freedom of religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It should be obvious, that the right to 'peaceably assemble' carries with it the same right to 'peaceably disassemble'.

I'm not sure how the racial part fits in.. i see a bit of the point of the OP in the PC obsession with race & 'white privilege', but i don't think there is any move to force association other than in the civil rights arena. You can choose, individually, to not associate with someone because of race, but not in business, contracts, or other collective actions.

I believe that the root article was talking about different races associating with each other.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one is advocating "forcing racial association," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Private citizens in the context of private society are free to associate with whomever they wish, or not.

 

[Roadrunner]

Article spells out the case:

Right of Association by Christopher Donovan

As far as simple secular morality goes, I see no issue with one group of people voluntarily and non-violently disassociating themselves from others. Nothing is owed in either direction. No physical harm befalls anyone. Theft, cheating, deception, sexual impropriety, insults, trespass – none of the standard moral issues are implicated. A man who dates and is later rejected by a woman has zero moral claim against her: she has, however painfully to him, decided to move in another direction. She has chosen her own destiny. Nobody questions her decision. No lawyer files a lawsuit on his behalf, no editorials are written, no criminal charges filed, no inquest is held. It is simply the rhythm of freedom.

If there is a relationship comparison to the racial morass, it may be that of a couple needing a divorce. In securing the separation, there are tricky issues to be dealt with, and there are costs and adjustments made, most of which take getting used to. But the result – assuming a sound decision to get the divorce in the first place – is typically worth it. The white race needs a divorce.

There is simply no moral imperative for forced racial association. The current white morality, which holds whites responsible for every last primitive in the South American jungle and subsistence farmer in southeast Asia, is laughably incorrect. Moral regard should radiate outward in concentric circles, with immediate family first, race next, and others beyond that. Garrett Hardin recognized as much with his observation of “promiscuous altruism”. We currently have it backward: we consider the starving African child a more pressing issue than the fact that the white child doesn’t even exist because we refuse to marry and have children. The current state of multiracialism is due to a precious few – and transitory – factors: slavery and uncontrolled immigration. These are temporary and can be reversed. No human group has an unending right to the material support provided by any other group, yet this is the only notion supporting the rickety, rotten infrastructure of the forced multiracial society.

That would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. We share the same government, the same neighborhoods, the same schools, the same libraries, the same doctors and hospitals, the same military, the same law enforcement, the same roads and bridges, the same churches, the same utilities, breath the same air, share the environment and resources, shop at the same stores, eat at the same restaurants, vacation on the same beaches, drink the same water, and many other common grounds.

Interesting to note you did not say we share the same tax burdens, because, we don't.

 

[Agit8r]

A freedom from association? Or a freedom to associate?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Article spells out the case:

Right of Association by Christopher Donovan

As far as simple secular morality goes, I see no issue with one group of people voluntarily and non-violently disassociating themselves from others. Nothing is owed in either direction. No physical harm befalls anyone. Theft, cheating, deception, sexual impropriety, insults, trespass – none of the standard moral issues are implicated. A man who dates and is later rejected by a woman has zero moral claim against her: she has, however painfully to him, decided to move in another direction. She has chosen her own destiny. Nobody questions her decision. No lawyer files a lawsuit on his behalf, no editorials are written, no criminal charges filed, no inquest is held. It is simply the rhythm of freedom.

If there is a relationship comparison to the racial morass, it may be that of a couple needing a divorce. In securing the separation, there are tricky issues to be dealt with, and there are costs and adjustments made, most of which take getting used to. But the result – assuming a sound decision to get the divorce in the first place – is typically worth it. The white race needs a divorce.

There is simply no moral imperative for forced racial association. The current white morality, which holds whites responsible for every last primitive in the South American jungle and subsistence farmer in southeast Asia, is laughably incorrect. Moral regard should radiate outward in concentric circles, with immediate family first, race next, and others beyond that. Garrett Hardin recognized as much with his observation of “promiscuous altruism”. We currently have it backward: we consider the starving African child a more pressing issue than the fact that the white child doesn’t even exist because we refuse to marry and have children. The current state of multiracialism is due to a precious few – and transitory – factors: slavery and uncontrolled immigration. These are temporary and can be reversed. No human group has an unending right to the material support provided by any other group, yet this is the only notion supporting the rickety, rotten infrastructure of the forced multiracial society.

1st Amendment. Association is a kind of speech. You're 'saying' you agree with tohers and are coming together to talk about how much you agree with each other.

 

[Agit8r]

Private association and public accommodation are not the same.

 

[George Costanza]

Article spells out the case:

Right of Association by Christopher Donovan

As far as simple secular morality goes, I see no issue with one group of people voluntarily and non-violently disassociating themselves from others. Nothing is owed in either direction. No physical harm befalls anyone. Theft, cheating, deception, sexual impropriety, insults, trespass – none of the standard moral issues are implicated. A man who dates and is later rejected by a woman has zero moral claim against her: she has, however painfully to him, decided to move in another direction. She has chosen her own destiny. Nobody questions her decision. No lawyer files a lawsuit on his behalf, no editorials are written, no criminal charges filed, no inquest is held. It is simply the rhythm of freedom.

If there is a relationship comparison to the racial morass, it may be that of a couple needing a divorce. In securing the separation, there are tricky issues to be dealt with, and there are costs and adjustments made, most of which take getting used to. But the result – assuming a sound decision to get the divorce in the first place – is typically worth it. The white race needs a divorce.

There is simply no moral imperative for forced racial association. The current white morality, which holds whites responsible for every last primitive in the South American jungle and subsistence farmer in southeast Asia, is laughably incorrect. Moral regard should radiate outward in concentric circles, with immediate family first, race next, and others beyond that. Garrett Hardin recognized as much with his observation of “promiscuous altruism”. We currently have it backward: we consider the starving African child a more pressing issue than the fact that the white child doesn’t even exist because we refuse to marry and have children. The current state of multiracialism is due to a precious few – and transitory – factors: slavery and uncontrolled immigration. These are temporary and can be reversed. No human group has an unending right to the material support provided by any other group, yet this is the only notion supporting the rickety, rotten infrastructure of the forced multiracial society.

Give an example or two of "forced association" between the White and the Black races.

And what is your suggested cure for this "forced association" - institutionalized segregation?

 

[William Joyce]

Article spells out the case:

Right of Association by Christopher Donovan

As far as simple secular morality goes, I see no issue with one group of people voluntarily and non-violently disassociating themselves from others. Nothing is owed in either direction. No physical harm befalls anyone. Theft, cheating, deception, sexual impropriety, insults, trespass – none of the standard moral issues are implicated. A man who dates and is later rejected by a woman has zero moral claim against her: she has, however painfully to him, decided to move in another direction. She has chosen her own destiny. Nobody questions her decision. No lawyer files a lawsuit on his behalf, no editorials are written, no criminal charges filed, no inquest is held. It is simply the rhythm of freedom.

If there is a relationship comparison to the racial morass, it may be that of a couple needing a divorce. In securing the separation, there are tricky issues to be dealt with, and there are costs and adjustments made, most of which take getting used to. But the result – assuming a sound decision to get the divorce in the first place – is typically worth it. The white race needs a divorce.

There is simply no moral imperative for forced racial association. The current white morality, which holds whites responsible for every last primitive in the South American jungle and subsistence farmer in southeast Asia, is laughably incorrect. Moral regard should radiate outward in concentric circles, with immediate family first, race next, and others beyond that. Garrett Hardin recognized as much with his observation of “promiscuous altruism”. We currently have it backward: we consider the starving African child a more pressing issue than the fact that the white child doesn’t even exist because we refuse to marry and have children. The current state of multiracialism is due to a precious few – and transitory – factors: slavery and uncontrolled immigration. These are temporary and can be reversed. No human group has an unending right to the material support provided by any other group, yet this is the only notion supporting the rickety, rotten infrastructure of the forced multiracial society.

Give an example or two of "forced association" between the White and the Black races.

And what is your suggested cure for this "forced association" - institutionalized segregation?

In housing, employment, schooling... just about every conceivable area of life with the exception of marriage and friends, people in the United States are not free to associate. You cannot legally say that you do not want to hire an Asian person or that you do not want to live in the same neighborhood as a Hispanic person.

 

[Abishai100]

The Dollar Disquisition



A really good way to approach this issue in our modern age of capitalism/consumerism-gauged globalization (i.e., eTrade) is through business.

Algeria, a member of OPEC, is arguably ahead of the USA in developing wind energy and wind farms. This could provide motivation for American companies to forge renewable energy ventures that promote dialogue and peace with regions (i.e., Middle East) which have otherwise have been culturally/religiously problematic to the Western world.

For example, is Chinatown, San Francisco (USA) the capitalist Orient of the West?

I'm an Asian-Indian born in India but raised in America. I'm a U.S. citizen, and I've studied in American schools. I've thought about moving to culturally-interesting cities such as Amsterdam, Holland or Toronto, Canada to start a bistro business, but I also like populism-rich American cities such as Baltimore, Maryland.

We could also talk about how the enforcement of school uniform/clothing policies in multi-cultural private schools in the East and the West (in cities such as Tokyo and Boston) promote more dialogue about racial interaction through avenues of professionalism, business, etc. School uniforms promote diligence and detract the distractions of culturally-built or socially-biased fashion trends that could be personalized with biases by racial/ethnic groups.

I plan to open a bank account with Citizen's Bank. Maybe what's obvious is actually what is also practical. Take that how you will...





Chinatown