Freedom of Association/History/Source - Revision history

RightspediaAdmin at 12:54, 14 May 2024

2024-05-14T12:54:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:54, 14 May 2024
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Boyd, Richard. “THE MADISONIAN PARADOX OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.” Social philosophy & policy 25, no. 2 (2008): 235–262.		Boyd, Richard. “THE MADISONIAN PARADOX OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.” Social philosophy & policy 25, no. 2 (2008): 235–262.

	John Stuart ~~Mill~~. On Liberty. Oxford World Classics		Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Oxford World Classics
	}}		}}

Jkochan1 at 22:29, 16 April 2023

2023-04-16T22:29:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:29, 16 April 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=What is the oldest source in any country that mentions this right?		\|questionHeading=What is the oldest source in any country that mentions this right?
	\|pageLevel=Section		\|pageLevel=Section
	\|contents=John Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” (1689) primarily concerns religious associations, but he extends certain arguments to associations in general. The text in the next paragraph is Boyd’s summarization (241), where sections in quotes come directly from “A Letter.” As Boyd notes, though Locke defends policies that allow freer association, he does so because of their practical benefits, not because it is a fundamental right.		\|contents=John Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” (1689) primarily concerns religious associations, but he extends certain arguments to associations in general. The text in the next paragraph is Boyd’s summarization (241), where sections in quotes come directly from “A Letter.” As Boyd notes, though Locke defends policies that allow freer association, he does so because of their practical benefits, not because it is a fundamental right. (Boyd, 241)

	"'Suppose this Business of Religion were let alone,' Locke hypothesizes, 'and that there were some other Distinction made between men and men, upon account of their different Complexions, Shapes, and Features.' Under conditions of differential treatment, such persons, 'united together by one common persecution,' would become just as dangerous and disruptive. Conversely, if the state eliminated special privileges, on the one hand, or disproportionate burdens, on the other, then supposedly intractable religious or ethnic affiliations would become matters of complete indifference, no more or less contentious than other private decisions about how to spend one’s money, manage one’s estates, or marry off one’s daughter." (Boyd, 241)		"'Suppose this Business of Religion were let alone,' Locke hypothesizes, 'and that there were some other Distinction made between men and men, upon account of their different Complexions, Shapes, and Features.' Under conditions of differential treatment, such persons, 'united together by one common persecution,' would become just as dangerous and disruptive. Conversely, if the state eliminated special privileges, on the one hand, or disproportionate burdens, on the other, then supposedly intractable religious or ethnic affiliations would become matters of complete indifference, no more or less contentious than other private decisions about how to spend one’s money, manage one’s estates, or marry off one’s daughter." (Boyd, 241)

Jkochan1 at 22:29, 16 April 2023

2023-04-16T22:29:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:29, 16 April 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=What is the oldest source in any country that mentions this right?		\|questionHeading=What is the oldest source in any country that mentions this right?
	\|pageLevel=Section		\|pageLevel=Section
	\|contents=John Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” (~~[[Probable year::~~ 1689]]) primarily concerns religious associations, but he extends certain arguments to associations in general. The text in the next paragraph is Boyd’s summarization (241), where sections in quotes come directly from “A Letter.” As Boyd notes, though Locke defends policies that allow freer association, he does so because of their practical benefits, not because it is a fundamental right ~~(241)~~.		\|contents=John Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” (1689) primarily concerns religious associations, but he extends certain arguments to associations in general. The text in the next paragraph is Boyd’s summarization (241), where sections in quotes come directly from “A Letter.” As Boyd notes, though Locke defends policies that allow freer association, he does so because of their practical benefits, not because it is a fundamental right.

	~~“Suppose~~ this Business of Religion were let alone,” Locke hypothesizes, ~~“and~~ that there were some other Distinction made between men and men, upon account of their different Complexions, Shapes, and Features.” Under conditions of differential treatment, such persons, ~~“united~~ together by one common persecution,” would become just as dangerous and disruptive. Conversely, if the state eliminated special privileges, on the one hand, or disproportionate burdens, on the other, then supposedly intractable religious or ethnic affiliations would become matters of complete indifference, no more or less contentious than other private decisions about how to spend one’s money, manage one’s estates, or marry off one’s daughter.		"'Suppose this Business of Religion were let alone,' Locke hypothesizes, 'and that there were some other Distinction made between men and men, upon account of their different Complexions, Shapes, and Features.' Under conditions of differential treatment, such persons, 'united together by one common persecution,' would become just as dangerous and disruptive. Conversely, if the state eliminated special privileges, on the one hand, or disproportionate burdens, on the other, then supposedly intractable religious or ethnic affiliations would become matters of complete indifference, no more or less contentious than other private decisions about how to spend one’s money, manage one’s estates, or marry off one’s daughter." (Boyd, 241)

	~~In [[Probable year:: 1776]]~~, ~~Richard Price~~, ~~a British writer~~ who ~~supported the American revolution published Observations on the Nature~~ of ~~Civil Liberty~~, the ~~Principles of Government~~, ~~and~~ the ~~Justice and Policy~~ of ~~the War with America. Unlike other commentaries on civil rights~~, ~~he includes discussion on free assembly. He describes a prohibition on “associating~~ for any ~~purposes, except when leave should~~ be ~~given us by a Lord Lieutenant or Viceroy” as being part~~ of ~~a “state of oppression which no country can endure.” Though he does~~ not ~~phrase it as a fundamental right~~, ~~the fact that Price deems draconian restrictions on association oppressive implies a belief in at least a limited freedom of association~~.		Though Enlightenment commentators like Locke argued for and against greater freedom to associate. However, the first to mention it as an absolute right was John Stuart Mill, who argues in On Liberty that “from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived” (1859, 16).

	Though Enlightenment commentators like Locke argued for and against greater freedom to associate. However, the first to mention it as an absolute right was John Stuart Mill, who argues in On Liberty that “from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: ~~the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived” ([[Probable year:: 1859]], 16).~~		References:

			Boyd, Richard. “THE MADISONIAN PARADOX OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.” Social philosophy & policy 25, no. 2 (2008): 235–262.

			John Stuart Mill. On Liberty. Oxford World Classics
	}}		}}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-12-28T22:08:50Z

transformed

New page

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Association
|section=History
|question=Source
|questionHeading=What is the oldest source in any country that mentions this right?
|pageLevel=Section
|contents=John Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” ([[Probable year:: 1689]]) primarily concerns religious associations, but he extends certain arguments to associations in general. The text in the next paragraph is Boyd’s summarization (241), where sections in quotes come directly from “A Letter.” As Boyd notes, though Locke defends policies that allow freer association, he does so because of their practical benefits, not because it is a fundamental right (241).

“Suppose this Business of Religion were let alone,” Locke hypothesizes, “and that there were some other Distinction made between men and men, upon account of their different Complexions, Shapes, and Features.” Under conditions of differential treatment, such persons, “united together by one common persecution,” would become just as dangerous and disruptive. Conversely, if the state eliminated special privileges, on the one hand, or disproportionate burdens, on the other, then supposedly intractable religious or ethnic affiliations would become matters of complete indifference, no more or less contentious than other private decisions about how to spend one’s money, manage one’s estates, or marry off one’s daughter.

In [[Probable year:: 1776]], Richard Price, a British writer who supported the American revolution published Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America. Unlike other commentaries on civil rights, he includes discussion on free assembly. He describes a prohibition on “associating for any purposes, except when leave should be given us by a Lord Lieutenant or Viceroy” as being part of a “state of oppression which no country can endure.” Though he does not phrase it as a fundamental right, the fact that Price deems draconian restrictions on association oppressive implies a belief in at least a limited freedom of association.

Though Enlightenment commentators like Locke argued for and against greater freedom to associate. However, the first to mention it as an absolute right was John Stuart Mill, who argues in On Liberty that “from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived” ([[Probable year:: 1859]], 16).

}}