> So a group of people, joining together in a common cause, don’t have rights as members of that group? Emphasis added. No, they don't. They have rights as ind

> So a group of people, joining together in a common cause, don’t have rights as members of that group? Emphasis added. No, they don't. They have rights as individual people. > [...] this violates the right of Sam to freely associate with John and his right to not have to associate with the interloper. It also violates the privacy of San and John as individuals [...] Yes, that. "Sam" and "John" would have cause for civil (and probably criminal) action against the interloper. "John and Sam, Inc" has no say in the matter. It might be useful to grant John and Sam, Inc the privilege to own property, but even that isn't actually a right except insofar as Sam and John have a right not have the value of their assets (ie 50% ownership of John and Sam, Inc - functioning as a proxy for ownership of various comics) actively sabotaged/vandalized.