#Mozillagate: National Review Attacks Free Association
One of the many virtues of a free society is the right to chose whom you want to associate with. Part of that right involves the ability to refuse to associate with those whom you find objectionable. That is precisely what occurred in the Brendan Eich case.
Free people within the Mozilla community freely chose to distance themselves from Eich over his political views regarding gay rights. Unfortunately for Eich, that choice to disassociate by members of the free software community meant he could not be an effective CEO.
An open decision in an open society. Not pleasant, no conflict is, but completely keeping within the bounds of appropriate moral behavior. There was no violence nor threats made to person or property, just a simple protest and pledge of non-participation.
But now National Review has decided that this exercise of free association is “corrosive” and an example of “vindictive fanaticism.”
The nation’s full-time gay-rights professionals simply will not rest until a homogeneous and stultifying monoculture is settled upon the land, and if that means deploying a ridiculous lynch mob to pronounce anathema upon a California technology executive for private views acted on in his private life, then so be it. The gay agenda of the moment is, ironically enough, to force nonconformists into the metaphorical closet. If through the miracle of modern medicine you end up with five sets of mixed genitals, you’ll get your own section in the California civil-rights statutes; cling to nearly universal views about marriage for a few months after it’s become unfashionable, and you’re an untouchable.
A lynch mob? Truly conservative victimology has reached a deeper level of psychosis.
What exactly is National Review’s solution here? People should not be allowed to leave companies or refuse to associate with people they dislike and/or oppose? That’s a free society?
Conservatism used to be associated with the veneration of tradition, what could be more traditional in America than avoiding people you don’t like? Arguably most of the immigrants who helped build the nation came to America for exactly that reason. They found the people and institutions in their homelands objectionable and wanted the opportunity to disassociate.
Now the right to free association is corrosive and vindictive? Well call me a conservative but I think people should be allowed to decide where they want to work and with whom they want to associate.