Freedom of Association versus “Racism”

Freedom of Association versus “Racism”. By the Z-Man.

Way back in the last century, elements of the ruling class invented a new sin called racism. For most of human history, everyone just accepted the fact that people were different and people liked to be around their own. This was so obviously true no one had to think much about it. The exception was when one group of people tried to move into the area of another group of people. Invasions always led to violence, which is why invasions were immoral.

For reasons no one bothered to explain, elements of the ruling class decided that it was immoral for you to want to live around people like you. Further, you were not allowed to notice the differences in people. That was this new thing called racism. …

What the regime has always argued is that white people have dominated the world due to dumb luck and their unique cruelty. Whether it is the exploitation of resources held by nonwhites or simply good fortune, Europeans have unfairly outperformed the rest of the world and this is immoral. Therefore, it is required that current white people be made to suffer in order to balance the scales. This is the moral claim made in all policies under the umbrella of restorative justice.

One way to even the scales is to force whites to accept nonwhites into their lives so that the nonwhites can partake in the good fortune of whites. In education, for example, the underlying assumption is the teachers in white schools do a better job teaching their subjects than the teachers in nonwhite schools. The proof is Asians, who prefer white schools over black schools. Asians do very well, so it must be that special magic that exists in white schools, but not in black schools.

The left decided that it’s made-up crime of racism trumped freedom of association:

In the middle of the last century, a natural right enjoyed by all humans since the dawn of time was stripped from Americans. You no longer had the right to place your body next to another body without permission from the state. Further, you no longer had the right to deny nonwhites access to your life. Effectively, what was done is the forging of a new right possessed only by certain nonwhites. That right is the right to access white people and the things they create.

The rational opposition to this is that all people, even white people, have a right to make the most of their talents. Therefore, they have the right to work with whomever they think is in their best interest. This is a foundational argument of Western liberalism and the basis for market economics. Since you own you and have the right to use your labor as you see fit, it naturally follows that you have the right to associate, or not associate, with whomever you choose. …

Harvard can admit who they want because they are a private institution, but government must apply the same rules to all:

The moral position here is that Harvard, a private college, can discriminate however it pleases with regards to admissions. If they want a freshman class of left-handed Korean midgets, they can only admit those people. On the other hand, North Carolina is a public university and as such must admit students according to a set of rules applicable to all American citizens. That would also bar them from favoring legacies and potential sports stars in admissions.

You see, while we human beings and citizens enjoy the absolute right of free association, our government does not have that right. Otherwise, it is not our government and is instead an occupying force. Foundational to liberal society is free association and that means we collectively own the state. As equal partners in the state, the state cannot favor one group over another. Again, equality before the law is a bedrock item in a moral society.