Segregation and the Importance of Freedom of Association

“Shortly before I left the libertarian movement and Party five years ago, a
decision which I not only have never regretted but am almost continually
joyous about, I told two well-known leaders of the movement that I
thought it had become infected with and permeated by egalitarianism.
What? they said. Impossible. There are no egalitarians in the movement.
Further, I said that a good indication of this infection was a new-found
admiration for the Reverend “Doctor” Martin Luther King. Absurd, they
said. Well, interestingly enough, six months later, both of these gentlemen published articles hailing “Dr.” King as a “great libertarian.” To call this socialist, egalitarian, coercive integrationist, and vicious opponent of private-property rights, a someone who, to boot, was long under close Communist Party control, to call that person a “great libertarian,” is only one clear signal of how far the movement has decayed. Indeed, amidst all the talk in recent years about “litmus tests,” it seems to me that there is one excellent litmus test which can set up a clear dividing line between genuine conservatives and neoconservatives, and between paleolibertarians and what we can now call “left-libertarians.” And that test is where one stands on “Doctor” King. And indeed, it should come as no surprise that, as we shall see, there has been an increasing coming together, almost a fusion, of neocons and left-libertarians. In fact, there is now little to distinguish them.”

The Irrerpessible Rothbard by Murray Rothbard (Edited by Lew Rockwell) page 123

The Civil Rights Act is often celebrated by progressives as a step in the right direction for what they deem to be “freedom” and “equality”. The issue is the American Civil Rights Act didn’t provide people more freedom at all. If anything it only made matters worse overall. If you’re a progressive, you might find my statements against the Civil Rights Act shocking. Why would I, a Libertarian oppose a law that was supposedly designed to make people more equal? The answer to this question is pretty simple, I don’t believe in equality in the slightest. Equality isn’t something I desire at all. If anything I see what progressives deem “morally just” as a hindrance on what real freedom actually is. What do I mean by this? In order to understand what I’m talking about we must first understand the important distinction between negative rights and positive rights.

Negative Rights vs Positive Rights: Negative rights can be defined as “freedom from interference”. In order words it’s the right to do whatever you want without worrying about having your autonomy restricted by others. Negative rights are not absolute however. The main limitation of negative rights is that you do not have the freedom to restrict the negative rights of others. The basis of negative rights is self ownership. If an individual owns themselves that means they have the right to control their own body as well as whatever they obtain voluntarily. This means that individuals are their own property. If individuals are their own property that means that others don’t have the right to forcefully claim ownership of their own bodies. This is why slavery (involuntary servitude) is always unjust. This doesn’t mean all servitude is evil. Voluntary servitude (such as maids, butlers, bodyguards, community service, etc.) can be allowed since it’s based on a private contract that all parties involved agreed to. Voluntary contractual agreements aren’t against negative liberty since it doesn’t promote coercive interference. In a private contract, you agree to whatever terms are listed inside the contract if you sign it. This doesn’t mean all contracts are morally just. Some contracts can be scams or unfair, this is why you shouldn’t blindly sign any contract given to you. Do your research beforehand and don’t forget to read the contract carefully prior to signing to avoid getting screwed over. If the contract is violated by one or more individuals, then any legal disputes can be handled by local courts. How legal disputes should be handled is a topic for another day. What matter is the distinction between voluntary and involuntary associations and agreements, this will become relevant later on. The opposite of negative rights is a concept known as positive rights. Positive rights are based on the egalitarian notion that individuals are morally obligated to provide for others for the sake of the so-called “common good” of the people. The issue is that progressives misunderstand what the common good actually is. How is forced inclusion for the so-called “common good” undermine the autonomy of one demographic of individuals to benefit a larger collective? The only real common good is when every individual is judged the exact same under the law. Giving one side special privileges through diversity policies only props up one group of people over another (which ironically creates more inequality).

Freedom of Association: Freedom of Association is the idea that individuals have the right to join or leave any group at any time. Like all negative rights, freedom of association has its limits and drawbacks:

1. You cannot join a group or community that refuses to accept you. Because freedom of association gives groups and individuals the right to choose who they feel comfortable being around, meaning that they have the right to discriminate on their own property.
2. Discrimination has consequences. If you discriminate against too many demographics you might end up being ostracized by the very people you excluded.

Freedom of Association is still preferable to forced integration. At least under freedom of association, multi-cultural progressives, assimilationists, and ethnonationalists can co-exist peacefully and separately. The Civil Rights Act, Affirmative Action, and other diversity policies however simply remove these options altogether, further increasing ethnic and political tensions. It’s funny how progressives claim to hate right-wingers yet they still insist on forcing their enemies to live with them. Absolutely ridiculous.