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.