Should antidiscrimination laws limit freedom of association? The dangerous allure of human rights legislation
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Philosophy and Policy 25 (2):123-156 (2008)
This article defends the classical liberal view of human interactions that gives strong protection to associational freedom except in cases that involve the use of force or fraud or the exercise of monopoly power. That conception is at war with the modern antidiscrimination or human rights laws that operate in competitive markets in such vital areas as employment and housing, with respect to matters of race, sex, age, and increasingly, disability. The article further argues that using the label to boost the moral case for antidiscrimination laws gets matters exactly backwards, given that any program of forced association on one side of a status relationship (employer, not employee; landlord, not tenant) is inconsistent with any universal norm governing all individuals regardless of role in all associative arrangements. The articled also discusses the tensions that arise under current Supreme Court law, which protects associational freedom arising out of expressive activities (as in cases involving the NAACP or the Boy Scouts), but refuses to extend that protection to other forms of association, such as those involving persons with disabilities. The great vice of all these arrangements is that they cannot guarantee the stability of mandated win/lose relationships. The article further argues that a strong social consensus against discrimination is insufficient reason to coerce dissenters, given that holders of the dominant position can run their operations as they see fit even if others do otherwise. It closes with a short model human rights statute drafted in the classical liberal tradition that avoids the awkward line drawing and balancing that give rise to modern bureaucracies to enforce modern antidiscrimination laws
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David W. Meyers (1990). The Human Body and the Law. Stanford University Press.
Andrew P. Napolitano (2011). It is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom. Thomas Nelson.
Marie Thérèse Meulders-Klein, Ruth Deech & P. Vlaardingerbroek (eds.) (2002). Biomedicine, the Family, and Human Rights. Kluwer Law International.
Jean V. McHale (2003). Nursing and Human Rights. Butterworth Heinemann.
Thérèse Murphy (ed.) (2009). New Technologies and Human Rights. Oxford University Press.
Pradeep Dhillon (2011). The Role of Education in Freedom From Poverty as a Human Right. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (3):249-259.
Jan Stepan (ed.) (1990). International Survey of Laws on Assisted Procreation. Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #54,683 of 1,410,530 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #178,988 of 1,410,530 )
How can I increase my downloads?