Okay, so the ACLU all but ignores the Second Amendment. So what? Would this be a problem if they changed their slogan from “Defending the Bill of Rights” to “Defending Nine of the Ten Amendments found in the Bill of Rights”? It’s not as catchy, you know?
I really appreciate the ACLU. I think they go a long way toward informing people of important things that apply to them, and they also speak up for people who would otherwise have no voice. I do regret the fact that their releases are often so one-sided as to be propagandistic. For my favorite example of this, see The ACLU’s flash video on the Total Information Awareness program. Although I read their articles, I would never trust the ACLU as a news source.
Now that’s not true, and the second amendment is not the only place where Libertarians and the ACLU diverge.
Several years ago, a friend of mine got on a far-left junk mail list somehow, although he himself was very conservative politically. He showed me something he got in the mail - it was an invitation to join from the ACLU. It described in detail the ACLU’s positions on workers and employment; in fact, this was just about the only thing it talked about. I was pretty shocked by it - it was a mirror of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is basically a socialist manifesto. Every position the ACLU took in this area was contrary to a libertarian view - they advocated the government mandating terms of employment to everyone. Now this was 15 or 20 years ago, so I guess the ACLU could have changed, but I kind of doubt it.
So my vote is B - trying to destroy all that makes America great
Have you ever read the Declaration of Human Rights? You can skip all the mundane stuff at the beginning, the “interesting” part begins at about Article 22. It’s practically indistinguishable from the platform of the Socialist Party USA. I don’t think I’m stating anything controversial here.
Have you ever read the Socialist Party platform? There are vague similarities, but they are actually quite different, e.g., the UNUDH does not call for a minimum wage of $12/h…
Well, the UDHR doesn’t specifically state what the minimum wage should be, I agree. By the way, I’m not at all a Bricher-style person. I’m a libertarian-oriented atheist.
It’s Articles 22 through 26 that I’ve claimed are a socialist’s dream. Here’s my synopsis of each:
Article 22: Vague statement of economic, social, and cultural rights.
Article 23: Free choice in employment, equal pay for equal work, right to a living wage, right to join unions.
Article 24: Right to paid holidays.
Article 25: Right to someone else providing you food, clothing, housing, and health care.
Article 26: Right to free education.
These are all “positive” rights, the right to force the government to take care of you, as opposed to the libertarian view of rights, which are things that the government is restricted from doing.
It’s not Bircher paranoia to note that these are the same fundamental rights that the Socialist Party advocates. Nor that they were put into the UDHR by socialist politicians. The SP platform is just more specific (and additionally talks about Environmentalism and Animal Rights).
The rights outlined are a far cry from “a socialist’s dream.” They got some pretty big dreams (e.g., nationalizing all pensions; limit of 10 to 1 income disparity- while the the UDHR #13 protects private property rights :)).
I agree it seems very “socialist” from a libertarian point of view, but it is a stretch to equate it with the ASPP (great supervillain acronym). Are Republicans socialists because of the new medical entitlement?
OK, point taken that the US Socialist Party has dreams that go way beyond the UDHR. I hyperbolized.
My original point, before this sidetrack, was that there are other positions, besides the second amendment, that the libertarians and the ACLU differ. The ACLU’s own recruiting material echoed the UNUDHR very closely, and as you note, it’s vastly different from the libertarian ideals.
Socialists? Real, honest-to-goodness Socialists? Were they wearing slightly ratty tweed coats with leather patches at the elbows. Are they pipe smokers with vaguely constipated expressions? Occupying some quasi-academic postion that offers dignity more than money but damn little of either?
Haven’t seen one in years! So, taking over the world, are they?
CurtC, so far you’ve only compared the UDHR to Libertarianism and vaguely connected it to the ACLU through some mailing that your conservative friend got 15 years ago. I can’t find any information on the ACLU’s site that resembles UDHR Articles 22-25. As for Article 26, they do talk a bit about Students’ Rights, but it has more to do with discrimination and equal education than its being free, although that is mentioned.
It’s a big site, though, so I could easily have missed something. Can you quote, or at least be more specific about, something the ACLU said that resembles socialism?
> It’s Articles 22 through 26 that I’ve claimed are a socialist’s
> dream. Here’s my synopsis of each:
>
> Article 22: Vague statement of economic, social, and cultural
> rights.
> Article 23: Free choice in employment, equal pay for equal work,
> right to a living wage, right to join unions.
> Article 24: Right to paid holidays.
> Article 25: Right to someone else providing you food, clothing,
> housing, and health care.
> Article 26: Right to free education.
I think it would be a good idea for everyone to read the actual Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as opposed to CurtC’s summary of them. Admittedly, a lot of what they say in those five articles is vague blustering, but I don’t think his summary is entirely accurate. The summary of Article 25 is particularly bothersome. What this article implies is that that the minimum wage should be enough that a reasonable “standard of living” can be maintained. Admittedly, a reasonable standard of living is a pretty vaguely defined concept, but Article 25 doesn’t say that people should be automatically given things. It’s saying, I think, that the minimum wage should be high enough that people can have a reasonable standard of living when they work, and if they can’t work because of disability, old age, etc., then pensions should provide enough money for a reasonable standard of living.
Look, CurtC, if your point is that the UDoHR disagrees with your libertarian philosophy, I have no problem with that. You should just realized that your philosophy is not characteristic of most Americans. There are a lot of Americans who agree with most of the UDoHR who would never characterize themselves as socialists. Claiming that anyone who disagrees with your libertarian philosophy is therefore a socialist is a false dichotomy. (Incidentally, I am not interested in discussing the merits of libertarianism, socialism, or any other political philosophy.)
Over here, I’ve got an all original parts Kelvinator 3-Speed Ceiling Fan. Guy who sold it to me said it was the stunt double for the one in Casablanca. The one that smells so bad? Boy, am I glad you asked! That, my friend, is the original fan that the shit hit! No, really…
While I have respect for the ACLU’s desire to protect the rights of americans I have no respect for their costing my hometown $60,000.00 in order to change one frickin’ quadrant of the city seal. Real threat to our freedom in Ohio. :rolleyes:
Here’s the revised city seal, in the upper left corner the book (representing the Bible) used to have a cross in front of it. Now it’s supposed to be just a book, I suppose some ACLU lawyer can pretend it’s an evolution textbook or a copy of Mien Kamf or the collected works of Rod McEwan, I suppose. Good work guys, sleep well knowing you’ve fought the good fight. sheesh.
They made your home town free for non-Christians; how’s that a bad thing? Or are you suggesting non-Christians don’t deserve the same civil rights you enjoy?
