Positive and Negative Liberties/The ACLU are socialists

Yes

3 (27.3%)

No

8 (72.7%)

Total Members Voted: 4

[triddle]

I found wikipedia articles on positive and negative liberties. Now I think the terms are completely loaded, probably written by a socialist, but I think the definitions are fairly accurate. I'm also going to use a slightly different definition than Wikipedia offers because it helps me to think about liberties in this specific way.

A negative liberty is a liberty that we have because there is no authority over us. This is the type of liberty that I prefer, as a rule. For instance,

  * Right to free travel
  * Right to free association
  * Right to free contract

A positive liberty is a liberty that requires the action of another. For instance

  * Right to work
  * Right to health care
  * Right to be safe from firearms

I did some introspection and found a positive liberty I believe in - I was surprised at first. But I do believe that the right to a jury trial is absolutely required for any level of government that involves force.

This is how the American Civil Liberties Union can get away with using Liberty as the name of their cause. For instance, a snippet from ACLU website: Saying that an effective welfare system must have poverty reduction as its highest priority, the American Civil Liberties Union today warned Congress that welfare reform legislation set for consideration this afternoon in the House is not up to the task and would, in many cases, open doors in the states to significant violations of the core civil liberties of welfare recipients. (http://www.aclu.org/rightsofthepoor/welfare/13445prs20030213.html)

This makes the ACLU extreme positive libertists, or, in my opinion, a socialist organization.

The Wikipedia articles, for reference:
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

[Jiperly]

While some refer to the ACLU as a libertarian organization and while the ACLU has defended the US Libertarian Party in recent cases [62], a number of libertarians and objectivists oppose the ACLU for its support of laws that they view as distinctly anti-liberty, such as affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws that apply to private property. Former ACLU member Nat Hentoff has criticized the organization in a libertarian vein for promoting affirmative action and for supporting what he sees as government protected liberal speech codes enacted on college campuses and the workplace [63].

Law professor David Bernstein's book "You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws" takes the ACLU to task for frequently seeking to undermine expressive rights when they conflict with antidiscrimination laws, as in the 2000 Supreme Court case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Some libertarians have formed an organization they describe as the "libertarian ACLU" [64], the Institute for Justice.

~Libertarian Criticisms of the ACLU


I personally find that the ACLU pretty much stands for the first ammendment primarily- be it negitive or postive- thats all. That been said, I haven't researched them too much....

[triddle]

I personally find that the ACLU pretty much stands for the first ammendment primarily- be it negitive or postive- thats all. That been said, I haven't researched them too much....

They go beyond the right to free speech to such extremes as:

  * Right to welfare - http://www.aclu.org/rightsofthepoor/welfare/13428prs20030910.html
  * Right to housing projects - http://www.aclu.org/rightsofthepoor/housing/13443prs20030307.html

That is not within the range of free speech or any negative liberty; that is some form of force (taxes) being used as a tool to correct a perceived social injustice.

[triddle]

Another thought: Thanks to Missouri v. Holland we know that treaties adopted by the Federal Government take precedent over the Constitution itself. Has anyone here heard of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Its supposedly a world-wide bill of rights, but it is chock full of positive liberties.

 

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
• Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
• Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
• Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family
• Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.

That is just some of them. Thanks to the 14th amendment, which reads in part nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it is now the job of the Federal government to protect these "liberties" . Our Bill of Rights has been replaced with a world-wide document that specifies our government must contain social programs.

[TN_FSP]

This makes the ACLU extreme positive libertists, or, in my opinion, a socialist organization.

The Wikipedia articles, for reference:
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

The ACLU is not a socialist group.  It is a liberal group.

[triddle]

This makes the ACLU extreme positive libertists, or, in my opinion, a socialist organization.

The Wikipedia articles, for reference:
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

The ACLU is not a socialist group.  It is a liberal group.

What is your definition of socialist and liberal? Here are mine:

A conservative is a person who uses the government to enforce order and keep society stable.

A liberal is a person who uses the government to protect the liberties of everyone; these are further broken into positive and negative liberties.

If you believe that the government needs to use force to fix social problems, I believe you are a socialist. It is not required, under a strict definition of liberal, to use force on others for the fixing of the problems of society.

Wikipedia's definition of socialism is:

an ideology of a social and economic system where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by all of society. Amongst other things, this is supposed to eliminate unfair distribution of wealth.

I think if you are taxing someone you are asserting your control over their means of production.

[lapafrax]

There are no positive rights at all, IMO.  It's a gross fallacy.

One only has the right to be free from things, not free to get or do things.

[BugEyedBeast]

The ACLU stopped reading the Constitution at the 1st Amendment.  They couldn't be bothered to read the 2nd.

I appreciate your research, Triddle, and hope you continue offering it on the boards and as a caller to the show.

Triddle needs his own entry on the FTL Wiki.  Mark this as the first time I've said so on the board.

--BEB.

[triddle]

I appreciate your research, Triddle, and hope you continue offering it on the boards and as a caller to the show.

You are welcome and it is my pleasure; thank you very much for your appreciation as well.

Triddle needs his own entry on the FTL Wiki. 

The great thing about a Wiki is that anyone can do it. Don't worry about how ugly it is, just jump in and do it. The "official" policy is: Don't be afraid to edit - This is a policy designed to encourage people to edit the wiki; It helps decrease apprehension of brand new users which in turn will increase the size of the community. (from http://freetalklive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Wiki_Policy)

It sounds like you would be qualified to put some words at http://freetalklive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Triddle&action=edit, BugEye 

[JetlagQ]

There are no positive rights at all, IMO.  It's a gross fallacy.

One only has the right to be free from things, not free to get or do things.

Absolutely. And the reason is that you cannot have a positive right without a claim on someone else's property and freedom, which is an infringement on their rights.

If you have a right to receive property or time from someone, then they don't have a right to it. If they don't then you don't.

By saying you do have a right to it you are also saying you don't. Pretty simple contradiction right away.

[triddle]

Absolutely. And the reason is that you cannot have a positive right without a claim on someone else's property and freedom, which is an infringement on their rights.

If you have a right to receive property or time from someone, then they don't have a right to it. If they don't then you don't.

By saying you do have a right to it you are also saying you don't. Pretty simple contradiction right away.

I'm curious: do you believe in the right to a jury trial? Granted this only makes sense for a certain subset of the libertarian population, but I'm still curious.

[BenTucker]

There are no positive rights at all, IMO.  It's a gross fallacy.

One only has the right to be free from things, not free to get or do things.

Absolutely. And the reason is that you cannot have a positive right without a claim on someone else's property and freedom, which is an infringement on their rights.

If you have a right to receive property or time from someone, then they don't have a right to it. If they don't then you don't.

By saying you do have a right to it you are also saying you don't. Pretty simple contradiction right away.

too bad most folks get so horrible tripped up around the issue of land thinking you can have absolute property rights in land AND absolute property rights in labor...you can't.

you have to choose between one or the other...choose carefully though - making one conditional creates slavery and the other creates the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people when done properly!

[Laetitia]

too bad most folks get so horrible tripped up around the issue of land thinking you can have absolute property rights in land AND absolute property rights in labor...you can't.

you have to choose between one or the other...choose carefully though - making one conditional creates slavery and the other creates the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people when done properly!

The ACLU doesn't seem to get tripped up by this. They will defend an individual on the issue of search and seizure of person & property by government at the same time that they will do and say nothing about the seizure of property from individuals when that which is seized goes to fund positive rights like "health care" and "fair wages."

[JetlagQ]

too bad most folks get so horrible tripped up around the issue of land thinking you can have absolute property rights in land AND absolute property rights in labor...you can't.

you have to choose between one or the other...choose carefully though - making one conditional creates slavery and the other creates the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people when done properly!

The ACLU doesn't seem to get tripped up by this. They will defend an individual on the issue of search and seizure of person & property by government at the same time that they will do and say nothing about the seizure of property from individuals when that which is seized goes to fund positive rights like "health care" and "fair wages."

This underscores the importance of understanding your principles. With their flawed definition of "liberty" I can believe that they don't see the inherent contradiction in their own stances.