NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your opinion of the American Civil Liberties Union? Does it serve a purpose, or has it outlived that? Are they honest, or hypocritical? Good or bad (at present?)

I don't want this topic to be a flamethrowing match. In my personal opinion, the ACLU has had honorable acheivements in the past, but now they only seem intent on passing left-wing causes.

Funny--they're defending both Tom DeLay and Rsuh Limbaugh right now too. So much for the "left-wing" theory.

They're a solid organization that often takes on unpopular clients in an attempt to defend an ideal.

I think the ACLU seems a bit radical every now and then precisely because they are trying to preserve *everybody's* rights equally and unfortunately it is often the extreme right-wing that tries to get around equal rights.

Now if by left-wing, you mean anti-religion (as you have claimed before), see one of the most recent ACLU cases in the news where they helped a girl get her Bible-verse senior quote placed into her yearbook (where the school had refused to print it).

I think they are trying to enforce the Constitution, and doing a fair job of it. They aren't my favorite group, but they're OK.

I don't know if the ACLU still stands this way but they supported NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). The NAMBLA wants to remove laws against polgamy, age of consent, etc. They basically think (as far as my research as taken me) that men and boys should be able to be lovers without being penalized by the law. I personally am left winged, however, there are definite limits to how far such things can go.

I don't know if the ACLU still stands this way but they supported NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). The NAMBLA wants to remove laws against polgamy, age of consent, etc. They basically think (as far as my research as taken me) that men and boys should be able to be lovers without being penalized by the law. I personally am left winged, however, there are definite limits to how far such things can go.I get so tired of this charge--it's crap.

The ACLU supported the right of the members of NAMBLA to express their views publicly. The ACLU didn't support the desires of NAMBLA members to have sex with minors. The ACLU didn't support the repeal of polygamy laws or age of consent laws or pedophilia laws. They simply argued that NAMBLA members should have the right to say what they wish, as protected by the First Amendment.

Many ACLU members and leaders are libertarians who have personally strict moral codes but value our constitutional freedoms; they want to limit government, not poromote immorality.

Taking the opposite position then, would you say we need big government in order to be moral?

Taking the opposite position then, would you say we need big government in order to be moral?

No, big government only allows a minority to force their "morality" on others.

Many ACLU members and leaders are libertarians who have personally strict moral codes but value our constitutional freedoms; they want to limit government, not poromote immorality.

Taking the opposite position then, would you say we need big government in order to be moral?I don't think the size of government has anything to do with it. The government simply shouldn't be in the business of legislating morality--regardless of its size. Property rights? The right to be secure in your person? The government has a duty and responsibility to legislate on those matters. But on matters of personal morality, they need to stay the hell out of it.

Many ACLU members and leaders are libertarians who have personally strict moral codes but value our constitutional freedoms; they want to limit government, not poromote immorality.

Taking the opposite position then, would you say we need big government in order to be moral?I don't think the size of government has anything to do with it. The government simply shouldn't be in the business of legislating morality--regardless of its size. Property rights? The right to be secure in your person? The government has a duty and responsibility to legislate on those matters. But on matters of personal morality, they need to stay the hell out of it.

So are you a libertarian?

So are you a libertarian?A social libertarian. Economically, I'm a TANSTAAFL liberal--we've got responsibilities and we've got to pay for them, and that means we pay taxes. I don't believe in the free market as the solver of the country's ills, because my experience has been that the free market is an uncaring bitch that won't do a thing unless there's a profit in it.

For me, things like roads, air traffic control, airport security, national defense, social security, medical care, and other public works are too important to national security and the welfare of the citizenry to leave them to an unaccountable market.

So are you a libertarian?A social libertarian. Economically, I'm a TANSTAAFL liberal--we've got responsibilities and we've got to pay for them, and that means we pay taxes. I don't believe in the free market as the solver of the country's ills, because my experience has been that the free market is an uncaring bitch that won't do a thing unless there's a profit in it.

For me, things like roads, air traffic control, airport security, national defense, social security, medical care, and other public works are too important to national security and the welfare of the citizenry to leave them to an unaccountable market.

Ah. I just wondered because you sounded very much like a libertarian in that bit about what the government should and shouldn't do.

And what's TANSTAAFL? I know ThereIsNoSuchThingAsAFreeLunch, but that comes out to TINSTAAFL.

ThereAreNoSuchThingsAsAFreeLunch

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. :lol:

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. :lol:

Ah, now that makes good sense to a Southern boy like me. :wink: