I'm trying to find a valid argument for communities to exclude individuals. Town 1 wants to exclude People A. My current train of thought is that there exists a right to exclude individuals from an association of expression. I believe that's how people refer to the Supreme Court rulings on the matter. If culture is an expression. Culture resides in the individual and cultural bonds with other individuals strengthens the culture, strengthens the expression and forms a community. A community is an association of expression. The problem might be in the link between the community to property. I think, however, that one can argue that a community of culturally linked individuals who live in close proximity to each other have a stronger cultural bond than were they to live further apart from one another. A town, linked to property, is populated by a community with a right to exclude others from their town to maintain the strength of their own cultural bonds which is an expression. That should follow, because a town of 100 people who are overrun by 1,000 people either get dispersed in the crowd weakening their own cultural bonds or are politically overpowered allowing others to use their political advantage to weaken their cultural bonds. It would be similar to an association of 100 pro-Jewish having to contend with a 1,000 anti-Semites in their town hall meeting; even though the anti-Semites weren't recognized as being part of the association, just occupying the same space. Actually, even worse, since the political town has some authority over everyone within its boundaries, whereas at the town hall there is no overriding political authority.
