Photo by Erlian Zakia on

The conclusion that can be drawn from Lysander Spooner’s expositions on slavery and the injustice of the Civil War is that the rights are reciprocal.  Compulsory associate in the form of statehood is nothing more than slavery supported through the force of the U.S. Military. Kidnapping, false imprisonment, slavery, and other forms of coerced association violate the same underlying principle. All these forms of forced association restrict autonomous individuals. Who possess the implied right of unrestricted mobility. Suggesting they can travel or reside where they please as long they are not transgressing against the property rights of others. The right to self-ownership. Some may claim that this right inalienable and cannot be voluntarily transferred to another individual.  However, ownership implies that the owner can dispose of, consume, preserve, or transfer whatever they own. Even if that were to be the title to their own life. This could be feasibly transferred to another person via voluntary contracts.  The same can be said for individual rights being sold off or transferred even for temporary durations of time. When at work we are expected to abstain from making off-color or politically incorrect jokes while on the clock. In exchange for briefly and voluntarily suspending our right to free speech, we receive a conditional paycheck and continued employment.

Compulsory statehood not only violates the right to self-ownership by having the federal government assume control over the dissent citizens. It also transgresses a natural corollary of self-ownership, the right to free association.  If an individual owns themselves, they can choose who they associate with. Some may argue that you don’t choose your neighbors. Directly this observation is true. Indirectly it is false. Through purchasing a home in a specific neighborhood to consent to live near the people in the adjacent and parallel domiciles. This is quite qualitatively different then be forced to reside in a specific neighborhood by law or threat of military force. If the individuals residing in a certain geographic area all share similar sentiments and opt to become an autonomous region that is their prerogative. Yes, the Confederate South was guilty of the sin of slavery. Even considering this moral misstep, why should their right to free association be viewed as any less valid. Giving credence to the colloquialism “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. If were to examine the example of Catalonia, many Americans would be much more sympathetic to their separatist cause. In 2017, the Catalonian successionist movement presents a similar scenario.  A group of individuals self-identifying as Catalonian wanting to separate from Spain. Paralleling the Confederacy’s sense of southern identity driving them to want to become a sovereign governing body. Catalonia’s movement is easier to empathize with because it hasn’t been sullied and stained by any association with atrocities of the same magnitude as slavery.

The are other instances of the right of the free association being obscure by another issue. One of the most salient enemies of free association is political correctness. It is a lens that serves to only distort the general principle of having the right to choose whom you keep company with. Often, if you defend the right of state succession or the right not to associate with minority groups, you will be accused of bigotry. People believing that an unwavering defense of free association being tantamount to tacitly being racist demonstrates a lack of nuanced understanding. Not to mention this is nothing more than a superficial inference. It is possible to disagree with Jim Crow laws but also oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Both sets of laws infer our right to free association. Jim Crow laws are an example of forced exclusion. The state restricting who you can dine with, socialize with, and trade with through compulsory law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 operates as a form of forced integration.  This phrase generally is utilized in the context of immigration it also applies within the context of the Civil Rights Act. Business owners are being forced by statutory law to ignore certain characteristics of job applicants in the hiring process. Even though the proprietor of the business does have legal title and liability for the enterprise he established and manages. There is even some debate as to whether private business owners have a right to discriminate against customers for nonessential goods and services. The Masterpiece Cakeshop LTD V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case did appear to be a victory in the arena of free association. Many have erroneously labeled this situation as gay rights case.  This is incorrect. The larger principle behind this case is not whether a business is inclusive and accepts the transactions from everyone. Rather does the proprietor have the right to decline? The fact that the case involves a gay couple is unfortunate because it muddies the waters. Instead of commentators being focused on the principle of private property and individual liberty, they are all too fixated on the sexuality of the patrons who were denied service. If this had been a Neo-Nazi that had been denied service, who there has been any controversy? No. Making it reasonable to surmise that the social justice stance on discrimination is not only antithetical to our natural rights but is also hypocritical.  If we are truly committed to the principle of equality, then shouldn’t all businesses be forced to transact with every customer? Regardless if they are intoxicated and belligerent or white supremacy?  This frequently ignored question could lead someone to believe that the equality principle is one-sided.

It is utterly perplexing that most people fail to see the equivalence between various rights. For example, the right to gun ownership implies that an individual can abstain from owning a gun. The Second Amendment of the Constitution is predicated on the natural law principle of the right to defend one’s self and property.  The reciprocal nature of this right is somewhat self-evident.  This concept could easily be extrapolated to and to any of our other natural rights.  The ability to discriminate is at the very core of the principle of free association. Anytime we choose to patronize one restaurant over another we are actively engaging in a form of discrimination. The gay couple who were denied service by the Masterpiece Cakeshop could have easily utilized this principle to convey their dissatisfaction with the owners. Word of mouth can be the death knell for a small business, the couple could have easily told all their friends, family, co-workers, etc. about the incident. Urging of their close acquaintances to avoid this shop like the plague. Opting to discriminate against the shop. Is this an invalid form of protest? Not. It is equally as valid as a private company choosing to not do business with the couple.

This principle of voluntary discrimination makes state succession valid and any attempts to thwart these actions aggression. The south actively chose to discriminate between tolerating the overreach of the federal government or form their voluntary block of associated states. Through self-ownership and mutual consent among the citizens residing south of the Mason-Dixon line, this movement was valid. President Lincoln’s nationalistic initiative to force the south back into the Union was conspicuously transgressive.  


9 thoughts on “Rights Are Reciprocal In Nature

  1. This is the single-most important lesson I have learned from studying the work of Ronald Coase. Right are indeed reciprocal, since a right always imposes a corresponding duty on others not to violate that right, and when rights collide, as they invariably do in a pluralist world like ours, the question (as Coase himself puts it) is to avoid the greater harm!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s definitely a balanced way of navigating conflicting rights.

      However, why is it that people struggle with permitting conduct or habits that are not transgressive that they personally find distasteful?

      It’s easy to defend free speech when we find it to be congenial to our own views. It’s tempting to desire to ban speech we disagree with. This has been a major challenge in American society for the past several years. I am not sure how to address it. Both factions on this country want to censor and bury the other in a pile of codified speech prohibitions.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Civil Rights law has, in effect, trampled the implied constitutional right of free association. Christopher Caldwell has an interesting new book on this development. If I remember correctly, he described political correctness as a de facto practice. People, despite it not being compulsory, intentionally modify their speech to accommodate a certain ideology. It is no doubt a bizarre social phenomenon.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Not too sound too parochial or self-centered, I just want to live a free society. Free speech to me means everyone has free speech. Even those with offensive views.

      We can’t life in a free society without reciprocal liberty. All because you support someone’s right to do something doesn’t mean you necessarily condone it. That is a principle we have long since lost.

      I oppose state sanctioned mask mandates. Even if there was no law in place I would still wear one in public. To use force to bully someone into wearing a mask is wrong. All because I choose to wear one doesn’t mean my neighbor should be forced to follow suit.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I couldn’t agree more! I am absolutely disgusted with this new popular
        movement against so-called “hate speech.” It is comprised, at least in the intelligentsia, of miniature tyrants attempting to annihilate our free speech at the expense of a particular ideology.

        I can’t tell you how many people I have spoken to, even the most *constitutional* conservatives (surprisingly), that don’t comprehend reciprocal rights. We should not forget that there are authoritarians on both ends of the spectrum.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Many times these compulsory speech measures or other forms of censorship have little to do with their purported intentions.

          Wanting to ban specific kinds of speech has more do with political power and controlling the narrative then it does about defending disenfranchised groups. If they were truly concerned with marginalized groups there are much more effective ways to help these communities than policing language. Such as voluntary charity and grassroots community outreach.

          Then again the language police never put their money where their mouth is.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.