tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post400856258471580474..comments2024-02-27T15:47:47.923-05:00Comments on Principled Perspectives: Title 2: A Lesson on Activism - from the Leftprincipled perspectiveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-52989744576387335152011-07-14T13:00:09.780-04:002011-07-14T13:00:09.780-04:00"...he who has no right to freedom of associa..."...he who has no right to freedom of association -- no right to determine whom to associate with -- has no right to refrain from practicing racial discrimination, should the government decide to make such discrimination mandatory."<br /><br />That is an excellent point and gets right to the heart of the matter. When the power to impose a single exception to the exercise of any given right is granted to government, that right is obliterated.<br /><br />Another example: a legal ban on abortion is the establishment of the premise that the government has sovereignty over the functions of a woman's body. Under that premise, one can envision the day when mandatory abortions could follow from the EPA's new-found power to regulate CO2, considering the fact that human beings are <a href="http://principledperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/01/aborting-co2-machines.html" rel="nofollow">CO2 Machines</a>", as one climate scientist put it.principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-68881334601511151362011-07-13T10:32:17.303-04:002011-07-13T10:32:17.303-04:00that second comment could have easily been made ab...that second comment could have easily been made about liberals too but in a different realm. In fact maybe I will leave a comment on that myself.<br /><br />Regarding title 2 the principle also applies:<br /><br />To allow a person the freedom to practice racial discrimination does not imply that one sanctions his conduct, any more than to allow him the freedom to express a racist viewpoint implies that one sanctions its content. Moreover, just as someone who opposes racist propaganda has no right under freedom of speech to ban it, so neither does someone who opposes racial discrimination have a right under freedom of association to ban it. One may not interfere with another person's freedom of choice simply because one disagrees with the way that he or she exercises that freedom.<br /><br />Defenders of the First Amendment often point out that the true test of one's belief in freedom of speech is whether or not one allows freedom for speech that one finds offensive. By the same principle, the true test of one's belief in freedom of association is whether or not one allows freedom for associations that one finds offensive (e.g., those based on discrimination). In fact, he who has no right to freedom of association -- no right to determine whom to associate with -- has no right to refrain from practicing racial discrimination, should the government decide to make such discrimination mandatory. It is such mandatory discrimination to which the old miscegenation and separate-but-equal laws bear grim testimony, and of which the contemporary statutes on affirmative action and racial quotas are a modern expression.Michaelnoreply@blogger.com