# Civil Libertarians Vs. Libertarians **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2002, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192 "2002-04-12T07:44:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/21 "2002-04-16T21:45:09Z")
> [@](#): > > You could designate a few arbiters (keep it an odd number), who would decide which definitions are most appropriate for the discussion, and then perhaps we could all enjoy a Libertarianism argument that’s conducted in only one common language? Appropriate for _what_ discussion? If you want to discuss my philosophy, then you _must_ use my definitions of force and coercion, just as if you want to discuss Kant’s philosophy, you must use his definitions of “analytic” and “synthetic” even though they don’t mean what Joe Blow might think they mean. Why do you single me out for such a criticism, when it is positively the _norm_ to restrict terms to contexts within their specific domains in every serious academic discussion? I’m not “redefining” coercion when I say that it is initiated force or fraud. I am _simply_ defining it — for the purpose of giving you context within the reference frame of my philosophy. Is means is, but force does not always mean mass times acceleration. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/22 "2002-04-16T22:38:41Z")
LIBERTARIAN: [quote] Now, you and I both know the difference between lay definitions designed to enlighten people answering questions on Street Smarts, and proper definitions that satisfy the context of their academic usage.{/quote] Frankly, I didn’t find your definition of “civil libertarian” to be be a “proper definition” that would satisfy the “context of academic usage.” To the contrary, my problem with your definition of “civil libertarian” was that it was overly simplistic and facile – precisely the opposite of what you apparently believe it was. To say civil libertarians believe rights are bestowed (given) by documents and come from (originate from) magistrates is so over-simplistic to be flat-out wrong. As I already said, civil libertarians do not generally concern themselves with where rights come from as a philosophical matter – they are more concerned with defending them. But I am certain that many would take great exception to your assertion that they believe these rights exist only because they have been written down. Writing it down doesn’t make give anything legitimacy, and they would not argue that it does. > [@](#): > > You know very well, after years of discussions here, complete with links and citations, that libertarianism is opposition to the initiation force or fraud, and that those are coercion. I did not and do not take issue with your definition of “libertarian.” Though I do not agree with it, I have been down that road often enough with you to know that there is no profit in attempting to argue the matter with you. I do take issue with your definition of “civil libertarian,” because I think it is wrong. > [@](#): > > Now, with respect to your dictionary definition of civil libertarian, it is wholly compatible with the definition I offered. No, it is not, because your definition states that rights “are bestowed by” documents and “come from” magistrates. This is simply wrong. Again, civil libertarians do not usually get into where the rights come from originally, but they would certainly not agree that they come from documents. > [@](#): > > Your definition includes the phrase “rights guaranteed to the individual by law”. Law, these days, is typically documented. Sure, but “guaranteed by law” doesn’t mean the same as “comes from documents.” The fact that law is documented doesn’t mean that law _is_ a document, and nothing but a document. Surely you see that. Again, I am not a civil libertarian; I have significant philosophical problems with the ACLU that would preclude including me in that category. But just because I don’t agree with some of the work they do, that doesn’t mean I think the philosophical underpinnings of that work should be misrepresented. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/23 "2002-04-16T22:51:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Why do you single me out for such a criticism, when it is positively the norm to restrict terms to contexts within their specific domains in every serious academic discussion? I’m not “redefining” coercion when I say that it is initiated force or fraud. I am simply defining it — for the purpose of giving you context within the reference frame of my philosophy. Because you are attempting to justify your philosophy within the context of _my world_ (i.e. that shared reality in which us other few billion humans exist). Those terms which you so blithely and “simply” define —differently than any English lexicological source defines them— are terms describing _human action_; they are not specialized jargon invented by the tiny subset of humanity which self-identifies as “libertarian”. That’s why. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/24 "2002-04-16T23:24:05Z")
If the ACLU is a true reflection of civil libertarian thought, then it seems to me that there is little difference between it and simple liberalism. ---
**Author:** ![JasonFin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/4af34b/32.png) [@JasonFin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasonFin)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2002, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/25 "2002-04-17T00:20:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\*If the ACLU is a true reflection of civil libertarian thought, then it seems to me that there is little difference between it and simple liberalism. \*\* It would be more accurate to say that the opinions of the ACLU are, for the most part, a _subset_ of liberal thought. The ACLU concerns itself primarily with matters that are related in a clear way to civil rights, but rarely or not at all with such issues as welfare, health care, or taxation. Moreover, they do not agree with the “standard” liberal position on all issues–witness the ACLU’s opposition to campaign finance reform on free-speech grounds. ---
**Author:** ![il\_Topo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eb9ed0/32.png) [@il\_Topo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/il_Topo)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2002, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/26 "2002-04-17T02:58:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by fluiddruid \* > \*\*I don’t care much for this definition. As a liberal – and I hardly think I am alone here – I do not support “PC” controls on speech (whatever that means) and I do not support the drug war. Perhaps high-profile (read: centrist) liberals do; I doubt that these opinions are pervasive. \*\* Of course, my statement was a gross generalization, with the inherent problems that entails, but lets look a little closer: I think it is safe to say that over 90% of elected Democrats (usually self-styled liberals) support the drug war. That’s pretty pervasive. Sure, I made that statistic up; I doubt it’s far off, though. Also, the anti-hate speech movement is almost totally comprised of liberals, thus my statement. But to be fair, I suppose the anti-hate speech movement is really a subset of liberals, and many liberals truly do stand for free speech (except when it comes to campaign contributions and political ads, of course, in which case liberals are uniformly against free political speech). The anti-porn movement is comprised of both conservatives and feminist liberals (Camille Paglia aside). As Ted Nugent once said (paraphrased): “Of course I’m for free speech. We have to know where the idiots are.” ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2002, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/27 "2002-04-17T04:16:31Z")
> [@](#): > > The anti-porn movement is comprised of both conservatives and feminist liberals Nah, though it is reasonable to put them on the left of the spectrum the anti porn feminists explicitly reject liberalism. Along with many modern race theorists they tend to view liberalism’s legal equality as window dressing and a denial of reality. ---
**Author:** ![Moebius\_Street](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cdc98d/32.png) [@Moebius\_Street](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moebius_Street)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2002, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/28 "2002-04-17T14:32:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > Sure, but “guaranteed by law” doesn’t mean the same as “comes from documents.” The fact that law is documented doesn’t mean that law _is_ a document, and nothing but a document. Surely you see that. With the de-emphasis of “common law”, the prevailing judicial tradition is (to the best of my knowledge) “if it’s not documented, it doesn’t exist”. If this is true, then rights granted by law only exist to the extent that they’re documented. If our legislators “accidentally” created a loophole in the Bill of Rights, I think that you’re arguing that the right would only exist outside of the loophole. Mistake or not, the right is what the law says it is. What I believe is legally accepted (as implied by the 14th Amendment) is that these fundamental rights have their own existence, and the Bill of Rights merely recognizes them. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2002, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/29 "2002-04-17T19:10:47Z")
MOEBIUS – > [@](#): > > With the de-emphasis of “common law”, the prevailing judicial tradition is (to the best of my knowledge) “if it’s not documented, it doesn’t exist”. If this is true, then rights granted by law only exist to the extent that they’re documented. That depends on what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about crimes, for example, the will of the people as passed by the legislature will be reflected in documents – specifically, in the statutes and codes. But that doesn’t mean that, if the legislature outlaws murder and then every single copy of the law as passed is destroyed, it still isn’t illegal to murder. It is. But codified law (that is, law that has been reduced to statutes and codes) certainly is, definitionally, reflected in a body of documents (the self-same statutes and codes. Rights are a different thing. The rights that we have and that are guaranteed by the Constitution do not _come from_ the Constitution; they are merely written down there. There is no codified or statutory body of law interpreting the Constitution – it is what you probably would consider “common law” – that is, judicially interpreted, not passed by a legislative body. The judges interpret the scope of the right, but they do not “invent” the right, and LIB’s definition was incorrect to the extent it implied that they do. > [@](#): > > If our legislators “accidentally” created a loophole in the Bill of Rights, I think that you’re arguing that the right would only exist outside of the loophole. Mistake or not, the right is what the law says it is. Legislators cannot “create” a “loophole” in the Bill of Rights; they can only pass enactments that are subject to challenge on Constitutional grounds. Then _judges_ decide if the law is constitutional or unconstitutional, by interpreting the right _as it already exists_. At least, that’s what they say they are doing. Now, you may well have some judges who say a law is constitutional and some other judges who say the exact same law is _not_ constitutional (as frequently happens at the Supreme Court), and obviously both sides cannot be right. But neither side would agree that it’s position is an “invention;” rather, both sides will argue that their interpretation of the right (or law) in question is the correct one. > [@](#): > > What I believe is legally accepted (as implied by the 14th Amendment) is that these fundamental rights have their own existence, and the Bill of Rights merely recognizes them. Of course. The Bill of Rights serves not to set forth the rights you have (not “you can do X, you can do Y, you can do Z”) but rather to limit the government’s ability to infringe on _pre-existing_ rights (“the government can’t do X, the government can’t do Y, the government can’t do Z”). Certainly the Bill of Rights does not assert that it creates rights, or that rights exist only because the founders said they did. To the contrary, the founders held that rights came from God (" . . . that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ."). ---
**Author:** ![Moebius\_Street](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cdc98d/32.png) [@Moebius\_Street](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moebius_Street)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2002, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/30 "2002-04-17T19:28:54Z")
So you’re saying that there is no distinction between Libertarians and civil libertarians with respect to the “origin” of rights? That both groups believe that rights exist independent of their codification into law? BTW, I’m fully aware that today’s legislators can’t change the BoR (except through an amendment). James Madison, a couple of hundred years ago, could have. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2002, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/31 "2002-04-18T02:42:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JasonFin \* > It would be more accurate to say that the opinions of the ACLU are, for the most part, a _subset_ of liberal thought. That’s a good point. They are more focused than liberals in general. > [@](#): > > The ACLU concerns itself primarily with matters that are related in a clear way to civil rights, I would amend that to “matters that it believes are related to civil rights”. It has a rather expansive idea of what is a civil right, such as affirmative action and voting even if you don’t have an ID. > [@](#): > > but rarely or not at all with such issues as welfare, health care, or taxation. Actually, a search on both welfare and health care will yield many articles from their site, although they focus mainly on the civil liberties aspects. As for taxes, I don’t think that’s a traditional liberal issue, except for the fact that liberal policies tend to demand more taxes as a side effect. > [@](#): > > Moreover, they do not agree with the “standard” liberal position on all issues–witness the ACLU’s opposition to campaign finance reform on free-speech grounds. There are a few cases where they disagree with the majority of liberals, but it is usually on the basis of other liberal princples: for instance, liberals tend to support free speech, so there is a liberal basis for opposing CFR. Also, notice that McCain, a Republican, has been a major proponent of CFR. This is an issue where both sides are split. ---
**Author:** ![Moebius\_Street](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cdc98d/32.png) [@Moebius\_Street](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moebius_Street)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2002, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192/32 "2002-04-18T13:15:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > I would amend that to “matters that it believes are related to civil rights”. It has a rather expansive idea of what is a civil right. I would amend your amendment. In some areas their ideas are expansive, in other ways curiously lacking. To the best of my knowledge, the ACLU defends the following Amendments [ul] [li]1st (in sometimes perverse ways, taking the broadest imaginable stance)[/li][li]Part of the 4th (ignoring seizures, though)[/li][li]5th [/li][li]6th[/li][li]plus voting rights[/li][/ul] Curiously lacking are #2 and #10. When I asked the director of the state chapter about #2, she told me that the ACLU subscribes to the “collective rights” theory, an odd liberal interpretation that flies in the face of the other Amendment’s wording. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-libertarians-vs-libertarians/103192.md?page=1)