This article was originally published by Wanjiru Njoya at The Mises Institute. 

Murray Rothbard conceptualized liberty as an emanation of property rights and self-ownership. Freedom of association is, therefore, best understood as “a subset of private property rights.” Just as property rights are absolute and limited only by respect for other people’s property rights, freedom of association is absolute and constrained only by other people’s freedom to associate or not associate with whom they will.

Unless we are all to live as slaves, human interaction should always be voluntary. The correct ethical principle is that no one should be forced to associate or not associate with others against his or her will. It follows that the antidiscrimination principle is incompatible with freedom of association. The civil rights framework of rules based on “protected grounds” such as race, sex, or religion, violates freedom of association in two ways. First, by coercing people into associating with others against their will, for example, by imposing “disparate impact” penalties for failing to achieve racial or gender “equity” in employment. Second, by forbidding people from associating with those of their choice, for example, by constraining a landlord’s freedom to choose his own tenants. The Fair Housing Act “prohibits discrimination by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions and homeowners insurance companies.”

These restrictions on freedom of association were originally justified as necessary to enable everyone to have the benefit of private property and contractual freedom. However, economists such as Walter E. Williams have shown that there is no empirical evidence of barriers to participation, at least not after the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1964, and later the repeal of Jim Crow laws in the 1960s. A new justification for constraining liberty, therefore, rose to prominence, and the prevailing argument now is that restrictions are necessary to promote values such as diversity, equality, and inclusiveness. The antidiscrimination principle is now justified, not as a way of eradicating barriers to market participation, but as a way of advancing liberal values that we are all said to share.

The apparent consensus on liberal values is promoted by academics who argue that “all reasonable people” agree on the importance of egalitarianism and just disagree on how best to implement it. This apparent consensus is echoed by uniparty politicians. As Rothbard observes,

On the entire question of legally and judicially imposed “civil rights,” we have been subjected to a trap, to a shell game in which “both sides” adopt the same pernicious axiom and simply quarrel about interpretation within the same framework. On the one side, left-liberalism, which in the name of equality and civil rights, wants to outlaw “discrimination” everywhere, has pushed the process to the point of virtually mandating representational quotas for allegedly oppressed groups everywhere in society… But the Official Conservative opposition, which includes not only neocons but also regular conservatives, conservative legal foundations, and left-libertarians, adopts the self-same axiom of civil rights and equality.

Cancel culture

The axiom of civil rights and equality, now often expressed in the language of DEI, is a powerful weapon in the hands of those who take it upon themselves to dictate “our shared values.” They use the tools of cancel culture to control who is or is not permitted freely to associate with others. The cancel mob is against freedom of association for rebels who reject DEI values. Although the cancel mob can be shown to be wrong in most cases, as their reasons for cancellation are based on ideological disputes in which reasonable people strongly disagree with each other, it must be emphasized that freedom of association is not dependent on showing that the cancel mob has incorrectly stated the facts or that the cancel mob is unjustified in its opinions. Liberty based on self-ownership does not depend on showing that everyone agrees on how that liberty is to be exercised. Freedom of association is an absolute freedom whose boundaries lie only at the point where they encroach upon other people’s right freely to associate.

While anyone is entitled to boycott those with whom they disagree and to encourage others to join the boycott, it is wrong to harness the backing or power of the state to prevent people from freely associating on grounds that they happen to hold different opinions or values. An example is the ongoing furor over preserving Confederate history, which has recently targeted a museum in Georgetown, Delaware, for displaying the Confederate battle flag. The NAACP objected to the museum receiving public funds, arguing that “supporting a group that displays the confederate flag makes a statement of public policy that’s an affront to the sensibilities and dignity of a majority of Americans.” In September 2024, the activists were back in the news: “The debate over the Confederate flag flying at the Marvel Museum in Georgetown continues as Delaware action group Speak Out Against Hate (SOAH) works to bring the issue back to the spotlight and have the flag taken down.”

Ideally, given that taxation is theft, we should abolish taxes and thereby avoid the need for disputes over the allocation of public funds. But given that everyone is forced to pay taxes, the notion that some self-appointed activists should get to dictate which groups of taxpayers have opinions worthy of their respect should be rejected. The NAACP’s opposition to this museum is primarily based on their objection to groups associating for the purposes of preserving Confederate history, an aim which the NAACP considers “an affront to their sensibilities” and against “the values of the people.” They are upset by the flag and monument raised by the Delaware Grays Sons of Confederate Veterans on museum grounds. Yet the NAACP fails to recognize that, as illustrated by a recent survey, Americans are split roughly in half on the question of whether Confederate monuments should be destroyed with 52% supporting efforts to preserve them. Therefore, this is clearly a question on which people reasonably disagree, and neither side of the debate can claim a monopoly on “the values of the people.” Each side represents only the values of those who share their view, and freedom of association, therefore, becomes paramount.

Freedom of association does not depend on showing that everyone, or even a majority, agrees with the aims of any association. Freedom of association is the absolute liberty of free people, subject only to the freedom of others not to associate with them. The solution for anyone who disagrees with the heritage preserved by a museum is simply to not visit the museum, and leave others at liberty to support the museum should they wish.