Civil libertarianism- Yes or no?

Was gonna ask if the belief in civil libertarianism is required to be a liberal, but I'm not gonna ask that.

Just a simple up or down- Do you consider yourself a civil libertarian?

:kick:

Unless it protects civil liberty, democracy has neither its prerequisite nor the best of its fruits. In this century, commitment to civil liberty has become the primary differentiator between the two parties.

I think it's time to define and separate the libertarianisms. Not everybody believes in total anarchy and those who do are "Libertarians." Many who thought they were libertarians, are now drawing the line and eliminating free market from the formula. And do all civil libertarians have to be pro drug deregulation? That question might change some answers.

See? Too many variables. That poll will not give you a clear picture on what everyone believes.

Not necessarily all, but almost certainly marijuana. But, even those who didn't believe in that I wouldn't disqualify from being civil libertarian.

For me, it's just about the Bill of Rights. If you can see yourself joining the ACLU, you're probably a civil libertarian.

A property rights nutcase that wanted to challenge the zoning codes against building on wetlands said basically the same thing you did. For him, it was about the Bill of Rights too.

he's got an argument. Not that I'm with him, but surely you can at least understand what he's saying.

and flood out his neighbors. I understood it very well, thank you.

he'd obviously be infringing on their rights.

Simple. :)

Set asides and other city imposed obligations were the city's and the public's problem. Not so simple.

It's a basic civil libertarian principle. Hell, it's basically THE civil libertarian principle.

in real life.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my jaw....

pick up the costs.

Civil libertarians aren't into property rights, typically. That's more of just a libertarian thing.

civil libertarians do. His words exactly, "The Bill of Rights is like the horses on a horse drawn wagon. In order for it to work, all the horses must be cared for. You can't pick and chose which one you will defend, and which one you'll ignore."

I don't see what his argument has to do with ours. Civil libertarians argue for freedom of expression and religion, and privacy rights, etc.

exactly different things.

Different Schools Of Thoughts And Have Different Historical Antecedents.

which has to be at least as old as our democracy.

It's neither libertarianism nor anarchism.

however, elements of anarchy are still behind the Libertarian Movement.

"The less you mess around with folks they better off they are."


I would add "For the most part" at the beginning of the sentence...

Both anarchists and civil libertarians take much of their philosophies from Locke. As did our founding fathers. Read the Second Treatise on Government and then the Declaration of Independence. Pratically the same thing.

Freedom of religion, of speech, of thought, to travel, to reproductive choices, from unwarranted search, of due process, etc. As in the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Bill of Rights are broadly interpreted. There lies the source of the problem. You can have right-leaning civil libertarians (which are often Libertarians who believe in drug deregulation) and you can have left-leaning civil libertarians, which is sometimes defined as the ACLU. The problem with the ACLU is they really don't have a moral base that liberals can use to spring from. For example, supporting pornography is one of the Conservatives favorite targets of criticism.

So, really, for me, this term "libertarianism" has reached a dead end. It needs to branch out and have better definition because it confuses the debate more than it helps clear it up.

eom

someone bitching about something. However, taking your comment further, I agree that it's easier to make inroads in a public city hall meeting if the room is flooded with people and the speakers appear to be organized. But, city hall relies on secrecy so that the public never really gets the time it needs to organize. What generally happens is that the developer's lawyer talks to the city attorney to hash out the details of a development. The city attorney then talks to the city manager; the city manager waits until the city meeting date is ready to be published before he calls the city commissioners individually and builds consensus. So, that's how you get the done deal feeling when you, as a member of the public, walks in to talk at the open meeting portion of a public meeting.

But I digress...

I voted no.

I believe in some paternalistic laws - I believe prostitution should be illegal. I believe cocaine, heroin, and other hard drugs should be illegal. I believe that very occasionally, the potential destruction of the state against the will of those who consent to be governed can justify emergence revocation of certain political and personal rights. So by the gospel of civil libertarianism, I do not fit completely.

However, I believe in most other civil libertarian positions.

edit- the point about environmental regulation was well-taken as well.

And when you get to economic libertarianism, well, i support an active government role in shaping economic policy to achieve social ends, which totally disqualifies me as libertarian.

My absolute top priority issue is civil liberties, bar none. I believe in individual freedom both on principle and out of practicality; budget crises in many states could be virtually obliterated if they cut back on the time and money invested in the bureaucracy, the prison industry, and the law enforcement which invades citizens' private lives and bodies on a daily basis.

How does law enforcement invade citizens' private lives? Doesn't that only happen when they commit crimes - invasions of others' liberties and the public good.

There are people who are serving outrageous prison sentences because they took a bunch of crushed leaves, bound them in paper, and smoked them, of their own volition, an act that was made illegal earlier in the Twentieth century when the Narcotics Department realized that they didn't have enough to do. Right now a young man in New Jersey is spending the next few years in the state penitentiary instead of finishing his college education. There are thousands like him.

There are people who are publicly humiliated and forced to pay fines for actions in which all parties involved are consenting adults. That is invasion of citizens' private lives.

I agree with Backlash Cometh. I think the term civil libertarian has different shades of meaning to different people, as witnessed by this thread. And the Bill of Rights is interpreted very differently by different people, so simply saying that you "believe" in the Bill of Rights is meaningless.

Personally, I have never found that the term civil libertarian resonates for me. But I certainly adhere to many of the principles you may think a civil libertarian would. But not others...

Am I a civil libertarian? I don't know.

I believe strongly in freedom of speech, press and religion. I believe in the absolute separation of church and state (yes, the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance violates this; displaying the ten commandments in a government building like a courtroom violates this; praying in public schools violates this; teaching creationism in public schools violates this; all wacky faith-based initiatives violate this). I believe the government should not discriminate based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference. I do NOT believe in legislating morality or many of the paternalistic laws frequently cited: the act of sex between any number of consenting adults of any gender should be legal, regardless of which orafices were penetrated or whether money was exchanged; and same-sex marriage should be fully legal. I believe that drugs should be legal, although I would accept regulation on many of them. I do not believe that the drinking age should be artificially high at 21. I believe the government should have no say whatsoever over a zygote, embryo, or fetus while it remains inside the body of a woman. I believe that citizens should have access to the courts.

I also believe that the government can--and should--be a force for good in society. Wise and thorough regulation in numerous areas, including the environment, can help individuals lead safer, healthier lives and can help achieve justice. I believe in extensive environmental, health, safety, and transportation regulation. I believe that a modern civil society provides basic social services to its citizens, including healthcare, public health, education, public assistance. I believe in a significant and robust public sector in general. And I believe that the government has the right to control guns.

I believe that people who think they take the Bill of Rights completely literally are misguided: of course we interpret the Bill of Rights. We interpret the freedom of speech to apply to email messages or talking on the telephone even though these technologies were not envisioned by the writers of the Bill of Rights. We interpret property rights to extend to intellectual property. We have to. It is fundamentally impossible not to. The flexibility of the constitution is one of its most important features and has allowed it to function longer than any other.

People who claim to interpret the Bill of Rights literally usually do so regarding the Second Amendment, thinking falsely that this bolsters their claim that gun control is wrong or unconstitutional. Demanding a literal interpretation of the constitution is not only ludicrous and fundamentally impossible, but also fallacious: the Second Amendment provides only for the members of a militia to "bear arms," (guns are never mentioned by the Second Amendment, only "arms").

The Second Amendment provides only for the members of a militia to "bear arms," because there wasn't a military like ours today, with permanent bases containing full-time soldiers. People who were part of any "army" lived at their own houses and had other professions, which they left to fight when necessary. And, by necessity, they took their "arms" home with them. Therefore, the Second Amendment does not provide a universal right to "bear arms." Even if it did, the amendment mentions only "arms," which are, of course, subject to reinterpretation according to technology. Does this include knives? Bayonets? Handguns? Fully automatic machine guns? Nuclear bombs? Biological and chemical agents? Dirty bombs made with nails?

Civil Libertarians are Utopians - just like Neocons. One is as bad as the other. Except that CL give liberals a bad reputation. When it hits the newspapers that some serial baby killer is being helped out by CI - that helps nobody's cause (except the neocon one).

A political party has to represent the hopes and dreams of people - not the Utopian Ideals. And people all over Europe and Canada get along fine with Liberal ideals without the CL. Having human rights and charters for freedom is enough to have a free press etc. Human rights lawyers work great without a group which is so Utopian that it doesn't vet the 'cases' it takes on. You just don't support child murderers and get away with it (nor should you).

You have to be able to vet - if you want to be effective. CL do not properly vet their clients - because they are Utopians.

I am all for legallizing drugs like pot - if they can be proven safe and non-addictive. But if they cannot - like if their use leads to increased mental illness then you do not make them legal.

For sure spend you anti- drug budget going after Christal Meth and Heroin and the dangerous stuff. But don't legalize marajana unless it is safe. Just like aspirin. Is a joint as safe as an aspirin? Or will it hurt the youth who may use it to self medicate. What about the effects of a joint on school.

You don't just pick something you want and make that part of the CL cause. Is it safe?