Libertarians in the US: Why Are They So Concerned with "Free Association?," by OdinCrow

Here is a short new guest piece by OdinCrow, a guest writer. He takes on, logically, the Libertarian obsession with free association, which can only logically be based on racism and nothing else.
In fact, this free association nonsense is one of the principal reasons so many US White Nationalists have jumped on board the Libertarian train to ruin. There is scarcely a prominent White nationalist out there who is not some sort of a “Libertarian.” And Libertarianism of course is epidemic in the race realist/HBD community, the vast majority of whom are just thinly disguised racists.
In addition, Libertarianism is rife throughout the Manosphere, but I am not sure what the reasons are for that. There is also a similar obsession with Ayn Rand. Apparently men are producers and females are the leeches if not useless eaters.
A dominant theme in the Manosphere is, “Why should productive men via taxation support unproductive female leeches who hates us anyway?” I guess the answer to that question would be, “Because they are our grandmothers, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts and cousins?” Right?
The US Libertarian concept of freedom of association is typically defined thus:

Freedom of association is a term popular in libertarian literature. It is used to describe the concept of absolute freedom to live in a community or be part of an organization whose values or culture are closely related to one’s preferences; or, on a more basic level, to associate with any individual one chooses.
The libertarian concept of freedom of association is often rebuked from a moral/ethical context. Under laws in such a system, business owners could refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society.
Right-libertarians sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Epstein, respond that in a case of refusing service (which thus is a case of the freedom of contract) unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage.
Left-libertarians argue that such refusal would place those businesses at an economic disadvantage to those that provide services to all, making them less profitable and eventually leading them to close down.
Libertarians also argue that freedom of association, in a political context, is merely the extension of the right to determine with whom to associate in one’s personal life. For example, somebody who valued good manners or etiquette may not relish associating with someone who was not decent or was uncouth.
Or those opposed to homosexuality probably would not enjoy associating with gay people. In both instances, a person is voluntarily deciding with whom to associate, based on his/her own volition.
Libertarians believe that freedom of association, in the political sphere, is not such a fanciful or unrealistic notion, since individual human beings already choose with whom they would like to associate based on a variety of reasons.

Since this right is not threatened with suppression nor has it ever been suppressed in the US (except maybe for Communists during the 40s and 50s), I strongly suspect that the true expression of US libertarians’ view of freedom of association today embodies its converse meaning, which is that a group or community of like-minded individuals have the right to exclude those they find undesirable from their communities.
In short, they don’t want to be “forced” by the government to live around, go to school with, hire or work with niggers, wetbacks, faggots, kikes, immigrants, Amway salesmen, etc. Considering the largest demographic within their ranks (Whites), I don’t find that suspicion to be a irrational.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

7 thoughts on “Libertarians in the US: Why Are They So Concerned with "Free Association?," by OdinCrow”

  1. “I strongly suspect that the true expression of US libertarians’ view of freedom of association today embodies its converse meaning, which is that a group or community of like-minded individuals have the right to exclude those they find undesirable from their communities.”
    This is the difference between positive and negative liberty, and both are important for freedom of association. I don’t think one can be considered ‘truer’ than the other. The libertarians probably side more often with negative liberty, which could include freedom to exclude in a community in the sense that another ‘bigger’ community could not tell them all to not do that (smaller spheres of influence compared to the ones we have now are perfectly consistent with a libertarian viewpoint, it isn’t a simply a choice between strict individualism or what we have now). Which type of liberty takes precedence is probably fairly situational in practice. In this case, the question comes down to the scale and degree that the positive liberty of ‘freedom from exclusion’ can be reasonably granted. It is not an easy question to answer, but you could take the number of people grumbling about WN and libertarianism as a handy ‘canary in a mineshaft’ if you’d like.

    1. I could see ethnocentrism as a reason to gravitate towards Libertarian ideology, but I haven’t seen that tendency in Asians to be expressed as political ideology. They seem pretty open about just wanting to be around their own kind and don’t appear to feel the need to make bogus excuses or justifications for it. I know they’re generally scared shitless of blacks.

  2. To Rob and OdinCrow:
    Let me preface this response by saying I do not endorse many Libertarian ideas, except perhaps reform / repeal of drug laws, gay marriage, and rolling back the US military’s role as an international police force.
    For sure WNs like the Libertarian (or parts of it..) philosophy on Freedom of association but Libertarians are also clearly for open borders which WNs absolutely despise. From the Libertarian platform, Statement of Principals:
    http://www.lp.org/platform
    “Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”
    Note also that Libertarians would not oppose gay marriage or gay couples adopting children.
    As for past restrictions on Freedom of Association there have been plenty. (Albeit they did not generally apply to heterosexual Whites who associated with other heterosexual Whites save for some political affiliations as you noted..) Segregation in the South was enforced by law as were laws banning interracial marriage as are current laws against gay marriage/unions. My reading of the Libertarian platform is they would have opposed all laws enforcing segregation and are opposed to laws regarding marriage and sexuality. (except for children..)

  3. Why shouldn’t you have free association? I notice the standard line you added was “it’s racist”. Why shouldn’t people be racist?
    Richard Smothers said “…Asians…I know they’re generally scared shitless of blacks.” Why shouldn’t they be? Blacks tend to be a murderous bunch. Quite frequently they act inappropriately in public spaces and then attack those who bring it to their attention. They act as if we should bend over for eternity at their every whim to sooth their “feeling”. Enough. I don’t wish to be forced to deal with them. To enrich their lives by diminishing mine.

  4. dey rayciss yo!!! er’thang be rayciss!!! ain’t nuttin’ in da world dat ain’t rayciss!!!!!!!

  5. “Freedom of Association” is simply their Orwellian term for “Corporations Rights”. That’s what its all about. It’s nothing to do with race – it’s how libertarianism justifies cheerleading for big business.
    They gloss over the fact that limited-liability corporations are a) not really persons with rights, and b) created by the government. Corporations, of course, are one of the most undemocratic things in existence. And more so each year, with “shareholder activism” being targeted.
    A cancer on society unless closely regulated, like Jonathan Swift’s struldbrugs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.