Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

freedom of association

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
This means that a person should be free to associate with whom he chooses, even he discriminates on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, etc.

So if he own a business, why can't he state that no blacks are allowed?

The same applies to private property. If he doesn't want a certain group on his property. he should be free to say so.
«1345

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think most people don't want that.
    If you don't want someone of a certain race in your house thats fine, it's your property,
    if it's a business you have a responsibility to society if you ask me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A business is private property, no? :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A business is private property too, no? :)

    What is the fundamental difference in that and real estate?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well your business involves the public doesn't it, i.e., employees, customers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Businesses employ people. People live in a society.
    Work the rest out for yourself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by dantheman
    Well your business involves the public doesn't it, i.e., employees, customers.

    And a person GOES INTO business for self-interest, not necessarily to 'help society'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, but what they do affects society, whether you like it or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you're all heart aren't you sole liber!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Society is unimportant here. It's about private ownership.

    If someone owns a shop that doesn't allow women or the disabled, then what's stopping someone else from owning a shop that permits everyone?

    You can't wish any people's prejudices.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Freedom of associtaion means you have the freedom to associate with whom you wish. It doesn't mean you're free to discriminate against people on grounds of race or religion etc etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you're free to associate with whom you choose then why not discriminate in terms of race, gender, religion, etc?

    It's simply a logical extension!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by the sole liber
    If you're free to associate with whom you choose then why not discriminate in terms of race, gender, religion, etc?

    It's simply a logical extension!

    I thought I already explained that. The principle of freedom of association doesn't extend to "freedom to discriminate". Which part of that are you struggling to grasp?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Human Rights have unwritten limits placed on them.

    Those who put toegether what I think is the first form of human rights the US constitution would have been judically active in interpreting it would they not?

    If I was to call fire in a crowded theatre would I be expressing my freedom of speech or would I be misinterpreting the right to excercise that right?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Rocksteady
    If I was to call fire in a crowded theatre would I be expressing my freedom of speech or would I be misinterpreting the right to excercise that right?

    In which country?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Any country that has the right to freedom of speech. Odviously I did not mean when there is a real fire but if calling fire would have caused panic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Rocksteady
    Any country that has the right to freedom of speech. Odviously I did not mean when there is a real fire but if calling fire would have caused panic.

    Well it varies from country. Not every country has identical civil liberties.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well place the example of the freedom of association in terms of the US constitution.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calling out fire in a crowded theatre would be classified as Freedom of Expression, which in this country at least is protected more or less by the ECHR. The ECHR however states that......

    "The exercise of these freedoms.......may be subject to such formalities.......,restrictions......that are necessaryin a democratic society, in the interests of public safety."

    So no. Freedom of Expression doesn't extend to shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So do all freedoms not have limits?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Rocksteady
    So do all freedoms not have limits?

    Depends on the freedom, depends on the country.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: freedom of association
    Originally posted by the sole liber
    This means that a person should be free to associate with whom he chooses, even he discriminates on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, etc.

    So if he own a business, why can't he state that no blacks are allowed?

    The same applies to private property. If he doesn't want a certain group on his property. he should be free to say so.

    I seem to remember having a similar conversation recently.....

    I think the essance to understanding thius is to realise that one person and his private property do not live in a void, they exist within a wider society and to some extent must live with regards to that societies standards.

    Our society/culture/institutions do not generally tolerate discrimination thus the person cannot be allowed to act in this way.

    You surely recognise that any society places boundaries on the actions of its citizens........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by the sole liber
    Society is unimportant here. It's about private ownership.

    If someone owns a shop that doesn't allow women or the disabled, then what's stopping someone else from owning a shop that permits everyone?

    You can't wish any people's prejudices.

    Wel seeing as we are dealing with a situation of scarce resources then the existence of this shop does in fact make the existence of a shop with different standards more problematic and less likely........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If society thinks it's bad to discriminate then the shopowner would suffer. He is liable for his business after all.

    But if the state says it's OK, then there would be no one to stop him from doing so! Government doesn't ALWAYS have to be representative!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by the sole liber
    If society thinks it's bad to discriminate then the shopowner would suffer. He is liable for his business after all.
    How would teh shopowner suffer? By discriminating he/she is limiting their consumer pool, reducing the amount of potential revenue they would otherwiase gain.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by TheKingOfGlasgow
    How would teh shopowner suffer? By discriminating he/she is limiting their consumer pool, reducing the amount of potential revenue they would otherwiase gain.

    Asked and answered. Cf. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by TheKingOfGlasgow
    How would teh shopowner suffer? By discriminating he/she is limiting their consumer pool, reducing the amount of potential revenue they would otherwiase gain.

    Of course they would suffer. They'd lose potential custom if they discriminate, leading to lesser revenue!:rolleyes: :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So they suffer and the people banned form their shop suffer yet you are suggesting this is the better state of affairs?!

    This exactly highlights the beneficial role the state can play in aiding social coordination
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Rocksteady
    So do all freedoms not have limits?

    I don't believe there are many absolute freedoms.

    Freedom of expression has limits; you can't libel or slander someone.

    Freedom of movement has limits; you cannot violate another's property.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    So they suffer and the people banned form their shop suffer yet you are suggesting this is the better state of affairs?!

    This exactly highlights the beneficial role the state can play in aiding social coordination

    But which would you consider preferable: that the shopowner opens his/her doors to all because s/he his/herself knows that it benefits him/her and his/her business, or that he does so only because the law requires him/her to do so?

    Someone might not have a social conscience, but it's a pretty sure bet that s/he has an instinct for self-preservation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course it would be preferable that they do it of their own accord but there is a clear state role to play.

    Sole liber, what if we were talking about a small village, only one shop and the shopowner is denying access to the elderly black lady, she has no transport of her own thus very difficult to get to other shops. Would you be so happy to defend the racist shop-keeper then?
Sign In or Register to comment.