I would especially like feedback on this post. I don't feel as sure as I usually do about this one.
This does not mean that individuals' rights to associate will not be protected. It seems the rights to associate, when viewed as a part of individual rights will be more easily guarded. The question will not be "Should this specific religious group be allowed to stand on this specific street and chant their specific message?" When we talk about popular groups, we have certain responses, depending on whether we agree or disagree with the groups' messages, and perhaps wrongly whether we hold a grudge against a group based on their ethnic background, e.g. If we could avoid talking about groups when possible, it might promote the ability of jurors, judges, politicians, and others to see the situation with less bias. Pro-life people might support the loud protests right on the border of the property belonging to an abortion clinic because they support the protesters. However, if the situation is considered focusing on individuals, the situation might be cast as "Should an individual be able to stand on the border of a business' property, intruding by noise on the business' property?" This would promote a more fair review of the situation, and it comes from a proper view of citizens primarily as individuals.
The impracticality of individual treatment is usually the justification for grouping. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but I would say it's certainly *better* than failing to serve the majority of citizenry.
ReplyDelete