[251] in libertarians
Re: liberals support civil liberties?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Mon Sep 26 17:57:42 1994
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 17:52:44 -0400
From: vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu (Vernon Imrich)
To: hhuang@MIT.EDU, libertarians@MIT.EDU
> Were it only that most U.S. liberals were in fact
>predominantly in favor of civil liberties. But consider the following
>examples of regulations many left-liberal folks support:
>Discrimination law (subsumes harassment law):
> infringement on freedom of association
This is based on faulty economic theory that says the means of production
must be made available to all, not on the idea that we are not free to
associate. When it comes to instances not involving business they could
care less who you associate with, as far as the law is concerned.
>Speech codes/anti-porn ordinances:
> infringement of speech and expression
Of course, there are authoritarian liberals out there. However, the groups
with the most successful track records of fighting for free speech are all
left wing. I doubt you'd ever call Dershowitz a conservative.
Also, at least the supports of speech codes recognize the free speech
concerns as something to consider. Censors on the right tend to discard
the notion of free speech all together.
>FDA regulations:
> infringements on speech, drug liberty, and general freedom to
> do with one's body what one wishes
These are supported at least as much by the right as the left. It's
the right that doesn't want to even STUDY drug legalization. Listen
to how Limbaugh digs in to the surgeon general over this. And it's
the right that prevents marijuana for medical usage now. Barney Frank,
perhaps the most liberal congressmen in MA, is the only one I know of
who supports legalization in any substantial way.
>Consumer protection:
> infringement on speech and general right to buy what you want
>Anti-NAFTA/eminent domain:
> infringement on the right of businesses to leave the country
Buchannon and Perot are liberals? Oh, and check out the average
conservatives view of immigration policy, with or without the stipulation
that entitlement/services would not be provided to them. What they
really fear is someone competing for their jobs. On this the liberals
are almost more free market than some conservatives. The liberals at
least recognize that jobs are not "lost" to immigrants.
>Gun control:
> infringement on right to bear arms
I think this is a more urban/rural dispute more than left right. It
so happens that most of the urban areas are highly Democratic, so the
left picks up their banner. Southern rural Democrats are more pro-gun
than most urban Republicans (look at the votes last year).
>Immigration control (a welfare state defaults to anti-immigration
> measures; California is a prime example):
> infringement on freedom of emigration
You've got to be kidding. As I mentioned above, it's the conservatives
who don't want new folks comming in, usually because they fear the
"dilution" of some "cultural norms." English only is a conservative
issue. Teaching "American values" is a conservative issue. Even
drug prohibition has been tied to the conservative attempt to suppress
immigrant cultures (marijuana and the Mexican influence, opiates and
the Asian influences). Listen to the Howie Carr show for conservative
opinion on this. Though he's great when it comes to anti-tax or
anti-government sentiment, he spent several afternoons saying we should
forcibly keep all the Haitians in Haiti since they were "Voodoo practicing
savages." Immigration enunciates diversity and multi-culturalism, hardly
the bell weather issue of conservatives.
> Then, there are strange cases associated with the Clinton
>Administration such as:
Clinton is hated by liberals too, most of whom think he's sold them out
on lots of civil liberties issues. Including housing sweeps, electronic
privacy (CPSR is very liberal and against Clinton on this).
>Favoring going to war over Bosnia (and Haiti)
This one is interesting. Clinton seems to favor this action because
of his devotion to the notion of a world government where settlements
are resolved by UN action and subsequent enforcement. He feels that
since we have the most military power to give to the effort we need
to "pay our fair share" to support UN resolutions. He feels more
obliged to go to Haiti than anything else.
Conservatives, on the other hand, generally intervene to secure whatever
spoils of victory they are after. Hardly a non-initiation of force
principle.
The public, meanwhile, is much more isolationist on ALL sides.
Now what about: mandatory minimums, death penalty, asset forfeiture,
search and seizure, flag burning, and limited liability?
> A liberal says, "You are obligated to do this."
> A conservative says, "You are prohibited from doing that."
>
> You might wonder, "Well, what's the difference? Either way,
>laws are being passed that curtail your liberty." That's precisely
>the point.
This is fine. I don't mind if you take issue with both conservatives
and liberals equally. But what I see a lot of libertarians doing is
trying to convince themselves that the Buchannons, Robertsons, or
Limbaughs are not really serious about certain social issues, or that
these issues just aren't that important. It's like selective memory.
We remember Reagan for cutting taxes, not for restarting the dying
drug war. Then there was Bush who suggested we actually amend the
constitution to make flag burning illegal as part of his election platform.
We are, by necessity, allied with the Republicans against Clinton at
the moment. My concern is that we remember how really distinct we
are from them, that they do not share the same goals except on some
issues (and in general only for the time being).
If we forget this, all we'll end up doing is split the anti-government
vote and keep the D's in office. We've got to reach out as much to
"free speech" liberals as to anyone else, or no one will take us
seriously when we claim to support civil liberties.
Vernon
P.S. I should note that the LP is silent on the Death Penalty question,
though I am dead set against it. (excuse the pun)
