Freedom To Associate & Autonomous Freedom

I wanted to add a few thoughts to my brother's recent post concerning the "freedom of association".

We live in a day where we assume that the "state" must exist and must do so in the fashion of coercion. In other words, we simply assume that if we didn't have the state government that forces all people to accept its authority by aggression and threat of violence, then people would never get along.

But is it really the case that if it were not for coercion we would all splinter into chaos? I would beg to differ. I would like to use an example of Protestant churches. So many see Protestant denominationalism as chaotic. But is it really? Is this not merely the exercise of the freedom to associate? What if a local church changes it core beliefs over time and the problem goes beyond restoration to its original beliefs? What if several members of this local church decided to break fellowship and start a new church that is consistent with the original beliefs? Is this really so bad? If you disagree, how do you plan to keep those disaffected members? Do you plan to use coercion by force? A Centralized power, think the medieval church, would by necessity use coercion by threat of violence and would do so via government officials while standing by innocently.

Perhaps another example might be better. I am a member of a local hockey association. We have voluntarily joined a multi-state hockey association which is also a part of national hockey association. What if we decided as a local association to leave the multi-state association? Perhaps the national hockey association may put pressure on other local associations to not play hockey with us. Or perhaps they may try to use free-market principles to bring us back into their larger association by providing a better product?

So often I am told that if it were not for the monopoly of government we would not have roads or bridges, etc. The real argument is against "brute individualism". We just can't exist on our own. My response to this canard is simple. There is no such thing as autonomous individualism. We all exist within some kind of system to which we are bound in some way. So Libertarianism doesn't mean some kind of chaotic free-for-all. One of the facets of Libertarianism is that we are free to associate and disassociate and all the consequences that follow.

Let me offer another example. Say I live on top of a Mountain. In order to get supplies I have to pass over a grouchy old man's private property. Let's say the grouchy old man never lets anyone pass over his private property, at least not for a ridiculous fee. Therefore, I would not be autonomously free. I would have to make some kind of agreement with the grouchy old man. But what if the grouchy old man doesn't make any agreement? To assume that I may use government's threat of violence would violate the very freedom I claim to believe. It would be a self-contradiction. The grouchy old man morally does not have to agree with some government official telling him I must have freedom to travel over his land.

Now you may be wondering, did I change the subject? No. My point is simple. We have freedom, but those freedoms are based in a world that the Creator made, not in some chaotic autonomous world in which I live by myself. The old man has the right to his private property. He has the right to associate with whom he chooses. A monopolistic government clearly violates his fundamental right to secede or associate. Now this may not seem "fair" to some of you, but we are talking about reality, not some government mandated dream.

In the end, in order for the grouchy old man to succeed in life, he must provide something for his neighbors and his neighbors, including me, must do likewise. This is all part of the freedom of association.