Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway111224 | Hacker News Reader

I'm just asking, if there is the freedom of association.. why isn't there a freedom of dissociation ? Why force together people that would prefer to be separate ? Isn't this a violation of individual liberty ? (serious question)

View on HN

Care to specify what exactly you're thinking about? I mean in a sense we have that freedom, you don't necessarily have to associate with people that you don't want to. It's probably more the reasons you have for it that count here.

Why do the reasons matter ? And why no one believes you when you invoke cultural reasons or simple lack of affinity ?

There effectively is a freedom of disassociation, except maybe at the margins.

Part of the question might be "should business owners be forced to serve all their customers equally?". I suspect the question is moot and business owners themselves were likely against segregation to a solid majority. Having two entrances looks expensive as does having a decorative wall or different systems to deal with certain customers. Businessmen who choose not to serve customers will exist, but they will be rare. As strategies go, "let's not have customers!" is a loser.

Racist business owners would be common. Business owners who let that get in the way of making money would be much less so. Greed is a great equaliser.

This was historically true. Train operators pushed hard for desegragation because of the expense.

This was not at all historically true. White business owners all over the South publically and vociferously supported segregation. The White Citizens Councils we're usually organized and led by wealthy white people in the community, frequently business owners, and wealthy white people contributed substantial support got the Klan.

You're either implying that segregation can be reduced to "black and white people preferring not to be near each other" or this question is completely unrelated to the post.

It's not association to live in the same neighborhood as another person. I very much doubt the seriousness of this question.

It's a serious question. And actually living in proximity can be considered a form of association. But that is not the main topic of the article, which is showing mostly public places or businesses which were forced to bring/serve together people who did not want to be together previously.

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous description of the situation (especially since you're clearly not talking about individuals associating but racially-delimited groups).

Well if we are going to characterize our ideas instead of debating them I think I can call you extraordinarily disingenuous too.

So you would prefer a debate over technicalities with all historical context removed?

I would bet money that's a yes.

No, that is not what free association means, you are using the phrase "free association" and pretending "association" is interchangeable with it.

Living on the same planet is a form of association, asshole. Please go to the moon, you are infringing on my right of free association.

Obvious fascist.

Because it's hard for a state to justify and defend itself if populations are separated on clear lines. Thus, the state must enforce some sort homogeneity which will lead to better population mood and patriotism.

Thank you. Your argument makes sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com