From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Freedom of Association? What are the boundary conditions?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 05:08:55 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu


The following is the tenant of Freedom of Association as written by
the original poster.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
   Ever adult human has an utter right of FOA (Freedom Of Association).
   If you and any number of other adults (from zero to whatever) agree
   to do something, and as long as all the property involved is
   moral owned by the parties involved, and no initiation of coercion
   is involved in any way, then, have at it boys and girls (and undecided).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My version of FOA

1a. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

    Every adult (age unspecified) human has an 'utter' right of FOA.
    If you and any number of other adults (from 0 to infinity) agree to
    do something, and as long as all the property involved is morally
    owned (subjective at best) by the parties involved, and no initiation
    of coercion is involved in any way ( but subsequent coercion is allowed),
    have at it boys and girls ( I thought we were talking about adults?),
    and I will add...

    And that said activities in no way cause harm or disruption to other
    persons ( psychologically, physically or emotionally) or their own
    property. And that all morally defined property is defined
    within the context of present social structure. And that all people
    involved are defined as adults within the context of present social
    structure.

 
At first, 1. appears to be a sound tenant.  It allows each individual,
of course with the qualification that it is adults only, to associate
under consent, and if they utilize properties that are some how 'moral'
in nature or concept. There is also the qualifier that it does not involve
'initiation of coercion', which of course is open to debate as to an
absolute meaning.

It is my view that this FOA tenant is a vehicle which if misused, can
lead to segregation and discrimination, which of course is partly its
aim.  Its true thrust is to make sure that people do not have to associate
with other persons they do wish to.  But where in the sturture of morality
can we and do we draw these boundaries of association. My own absolute
condition of FOA may not work well for a majority of people I know. In the
end I may find myself completely isolated. 

Collective conditions in our present society bring about limits to the FOA
concept.  You operate in a sphere where there is a generalize collection
of people.  It is not always possible or even desirable to make your FOA
the primary concern.  Progress is built upon cooperative conditions, and
involves situations and people in which you may not want to have an association.
But it is my position that progress occurs in all arenas of social and
political interaction, those which are pleasant, neutral or unpleasant.

Advocates of the absolute FOA tend to believe that an individual
has the 'absolute' right to be with and interact with those individuals
that said person wishes to, and of course it is a mutual feeling.
We must examine the idea of 'absolute' right to FOA.  What are the
fundamental problems assoicated with this thinking?  Prejudice grows
out of this discriminatory attitude. Persons exposed to such concepts
tend to associate with those that they feel most comfortable, not with
those that may cause a progressive change or shift in attitude.