The civil libertarian divide on DU and elsewhere

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

It's a shame the word "libertarian" has been hijacked by tax-nuts, but that's life. (Same root as Liberal.)

I consider myself a civil-libertarian; one who takes very strong stances against government restrictions on thought and expression, governmental violations of individual privacy, and governmental abuses in criminal law.

I am a single issue voter on those matters. That means I have always voted Democratic. It's a dog-shit versus cat-shit deal... almost every Democrat has supported blatantly anti-constitutional laws at one time or another. But on balance, Democrats are better on civil-liberties.

Sometimes people describe the behavior of private citizens as censorship. That is incorrect. Only the government can censor.

That does not, however, mean that it is a good thing to act like a would-be censor or hold certain attitudes that are hostile to expressive rights. I will defend anyone's right to say hostile, ignorant authoritarian things. But that doesn't mean such views are admirable.

Example: You cannot use race prejudice as a basis for hiring. You can, however, use race prejudice in how you think about people. The first is a violation of law. The second is just crummy behavior.

Similarly, when a person (or private entity) talks like a censor and thinks like a censor, it is their perfect right to do so. Is is also, however, revolting behavior... as hostile to a decent conception of American life as referring to ones neighbors using racial slurs.

Most of the biggest fights on DU are between civil-libertarians and communitarians. One's conception of the autonomy of the individual seems to be an axis sepearte from right and left. There are Democratic authoritarians and Republican libertarians. (If Free Republic allowed any disagreements, those disagreements would mostly be about civil-liberties... big-state fascists versus goldwater types.)

Some see the constitution as a balanced mix of rights and responsibilities. That is nuts, since the Constitution doesn't mention any individual responsibilities and exists primarily to limit the state, but here we are.

No conclusion here. Just a series of observations.

The relevance of this post to GDP is obvious. GDP is the most authoritarian forum in tone, so the civil-libertarian divide is usually seen in sharpest relief here.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Whoops, I forgot to add: "New Yorker!!!" Sorry.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. .

[Bluerthanblue]

3. well- not surprisingly I

disagree.

What we are seeing is the way a society establishes what is acceptable behavior. The concept that I can say whatever comes into my head, and not expect people to react to it- or to say that those who react negatively to what I say are less in favor of 'civil' rights, is kind of an oxymoron IMO. If the New Yorkers right to say what they have -inadvertently- said in their cover harms the 'rights' of Barack and Michelle- then who will defend their right to be free to live in peace, without being harmed or threatened as a result of the 'freedoms' of others?


:shrug: