[498] in libertarians
ACLU v. IRF
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin THEOBALD)
Sun Dec 11 14:31:23 1994
From: theobald@duke.cs.mcgill.ca (Kevin THEOBALD)
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 14:27:19 -0500
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
(9th Internet Court of Flames, 1994)
Sorry I couldn't get to this earlier, but I had deadlines.
First, I'd like to thank Seth for posting the ACLU gopher site. Interesting
source of information.
As for this whole ACLU/IRF business, I'd say that the issue would become
less contentious if people wouldn't view the IRF as some kind of competitor
with the ACLU. The ACLU states (in their gopher pages) that they don't
have unlimited resources and can't take on every case. To use a market
analogy (hey, this is libertarians@mit! :-), the IRF is going after a "niche
market" that doesn't seem to interest the ACLU too much. I don't see the
ACLU screaming, "hey, you can't take those cases, they're *ours*!" So
what's the problem?
In some cases, the IRF may be all that's available. People like Seth have
rightly pointed out that "ACLU" and "One case from the worst ACLU affiliate
one can dig up" are not the same. But according to the stuff I found on
the gopher site, if you want help, you're supposed to go to your local
affiliate. What if you live in a state with one of the "bad" ones? Are
you stuck? Is there a way to go over their heads to the national level?
Seth fears the IRF may actually do "more harm than good." Why? Because
they are selective about the rights they champion? Well, as great an
authority as Dershowitz (I mean Alan :-) has accused the ACLU of being
selective too. This does not, by itself, make them dangerous. It would
only be a problem if their preeminent position made it impossible for other
groups to get funding to defend the rights not defended by the ACLU, and
that doesn't seem to be the case (as proven by the existence of the IRF).
A group that is selective in the rights it defends is not dangerous unless
it actually starts attacking rights. The ACLU seems to be treading near
this line. Based on what has been posted to this group, their positions on
gun rights have wavered between neutrality and actual support for suppression
of liberties. This is based on a standard pro-gun-control interpretation
of the 2nd Amendment, which, as someone said in this forum, requires
giving entirely different meanings to the same phrase ("the people") when
used in different sections of the Bill of Rights. And it is extremely
ironic, given that there are good historical arguments that a well-armed
populace is one of the best guarantors of civil liberties.
The IRF, on the other hand, has shown no inclination to oppose rights.
They only talk about supporting rights outside the traditional domain of
the ACLU, such as gun rights and property rights. These are rights
libertarians also support, so why shouldn't libertarians support them
(unless, of course, there are better organizations that are supporting
the same rights). If the IRF started supporting, say, anti-drug laws,
then it would be time to withdraw support.
Kevin
