Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That is so we don’t pick and choose. Note that what congress cannot abridge is the right to peaceably assemble. That is not that same as your claim of free association. There are not only conceptual differences but legal differences as well.
“You nor the government, nor anyone else has any right to tell private individuals who they can or cannot associate for whatever reason they decide.” Fundamentally wrong. IF you are plotting to overthrow the government, the government not only can but will limit your “right” to associate. The right is not absolute -— just as you maynot shout fire in a crowded theater.
Liberty, freedom of the individual comes from our Creator. Man’s governments tend to want to strip us of those gifts. With that I will agree. But the COnstitution is not an absolutist document. It does not require us to commit suicide as a society in order to protect it.
You have claimed that all of liberty and all of Western Civilization is founded on private property rights and the right of free association. I would suggest that documents such as the Magna Carta espouse the importance of the individual ahead of the state. Prior to that time the king or that state was supreme. Freedom is a God given right. Protect it while you have it.
And your thinking is still cloudy
We don't remove people's tongues upon entering a theater, in the effort to prevent them from yelling "fire." What if the theater were actually on fire?
We do not, or rather should not, preempt rights because they may be misused.
Stop with strawmen, you are making yourself look foolish.
Freedom of association is a fundamental principle of a free society, and yes the freedome to peaceably assemble is exactly what this entails.
Your strawman argument of trying to portray “conspiracy” as peaceable assembly is laughable on its face.
You have one thing right, freedom of the individual is tantamount. Yet, you continue to defend a stand that is absolutely at odds with that principle. No indidivual has the right to claim the right to another individuals property, or to their right to associate with who they choose. Just because they don’t like it.
You are arguing a stand that in the absolute oposite of individual freedom and trying to argue individual freedom justfies it. This is not only patently wrong, it requires a complete bastardization of the construct of personal liberty to say it with a straight face.
Your arguing that a group has a fundamental right to another persons property, not only that but also that the other group has absolutely no right to decide who they can or cannot associate with. Those are principles of statism/totalitarianism and communalism, they are not principles or liberty.
You are free to be offended by a group of racists having a club, but you have absolutely no right to their clubs property or their right to associate with one another in peaceful ways.
There just isn’t a leg to stand on for the arguments you are making that is based in historical reality, you are tryihng to claim liberty allows you to engage in opression of a group you don’t like, and that is the complete bastardization of the very concept of liberty.