ACLU and Objectivism

[Guest ginzershop]

When Perusing "objectivist" web pages, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon;

None of the websites have links to the ACLU which is perhaps the most powerful and effective guaranteer of individual rights in this country. Their mission has four goals it strives for;

"Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs."

This seems to be an important aspect of Objectivism, as is this;

"Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake."

and this;

"Your First Amendment rights..."

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin."

why isnt the ACLU mentioned more often in the context of Objectivist political discussions???

Another Question is what should the Objectivist approach be towards organizations such as Human Rights Watch which Embrace SOME objectivist goals while actively Opposing others?

[y_feldblum]

Whatever the ACLU might claim to defend, in the past it has actually defended subjective rights, altruist morality, and collectivist statism.

The right to privacy is a subjective right. As such, it is not a right at all: it is merely a privilege which may or may not be granted, whimsically and equally morally. Privacy is not a necessary condition of man's existence on earth as animals surviving by the product of their rational minds.

The notion of civil liberties, too, is a subjective thing - they are not grounded in reality, not derived from the nature of man and his requirements for existence.

The Objectivist position towards organizations promoting subjectivism is to denounce subjectivism. In fact, many of these organizations, however noble they consider their intentions, are terrible offenders of objective rights themselves, promoting welfare statism or worse at the cost of man's life.

[Guest ginzershop]

"Whatever the ACLU might claim to defend, in the past it has actually defended subjective rights, altruist morality, and collectivist statism."

can you give an example of this?

"The right to privacy is a subjective right. As such, it is not a right at all: it is merely a privilege which may or may not be granted, whimsically and equally morally. Privacy is not a necessary condition of man's existence on earth as animals surviving by the product of their rational minds."

The right to privacy as defined by the ACLU is the right to privacy from unwarranted government into personal and private affairs. I fail to see how this is a contrary to the philosophy of objectivism

"The notion of civil liberties, too, is a subjective thing - they are not grounded in reality, not derived from the nature of man and his requirements for existence."

Semantics... the actual governmental checks they protect are all accepted by objectivists

In fact, many of these organizations, however noble they consider their intentions, are terrible offenders of objective rights themselves, promoting welfare statism or worse at the cost of man's life.

specific examples please

[RadCap]

Example? Elian Gonzalas case for one. The ACLU fought for the return of Elian to slavery instead of fighting to keeping him free.

There are numerous others instances:

Their support of Affirmative Action

Their support of "Fair" housing regulations

Their support of "Equal Opportunity" legislation.

Their support for anti-discrimination laws and regulations.

Their support for "disability rights" Ie Americans with Disabilities Act.

Their support for 'free speech' without regard for property rights

Their support for continued regulation of media ownership

Their support of campaign finance reform via public financing of political campaigns.

This is just the tip of the iceburg. However, these alone provide more than enough reasons to oppose the ACLU in general. It is certainly reason enough NOT to provide links to them.

They are NOT "perhaps the most powerful and effective guaranteer of individual rights in this country."

If you are truly interested in the subject, you can do your own legwork to come up with plenty more reasons not to support them. They are a left leaning libertarian style organization. They neither hold nor defend objectivist principles.

[Scott_Connery]

They aren't big fans of self defense at all either.

[Guest Guest]

"They neither hold nor defend objectivist principles."

Objectivist Principle: "Faith and Government Should Not mix"

ACLU Responses; Monkey Trial(successfull), Opposition to Marriage Ammendment, opposition to faith based initiatives....

Objectivist Principle; "Government should not interfere in the free exchange of money"

ACLU Response; 1933 Ulysess Case Succeeded in preventing the Government from stopping the Sale of books.Rallied Successfully against Key Provisions in McCain-Feingold

Objectivist Principle; "people have the right to control over their own bodies"

ACLU Response; reproductive rights

"Objectivist Principle; "treat men as individuals not as collective groups"

ACLU response; stood against Japanese American Internship camps

etc etc etc

"They are NOT "perhaps the most powerful and effective guaranteer of individual rights in this country."

Out of curiosity, who is??

There are numerous others instances...

I was largely checking to make sure you weren't blindly parrroting some talking head... and you werent, you know your stuff, that is established.

Now I'd like to know why Limited Support for them isnt endorsed. They are after all mostly a legal organization... It is entirely possible to send a check to them saying "Please Defend Nikes right to ... with this money"

Edited February 11, 2004 by GreedyCapitalist

[Anatole]

For everything the ACLU gets right, it gets 10 things wrong. Just because their principles occasionally intersect with those of Objectivism doesn't make them an ally any more than it does neo-conservatives.

[NIJamesHughes]

Only individuals have rights. The only rights they have are Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Some of the "rights" that the ACLU defend are:

Disability Rights

Immigrants Rights

Lesbian & Gay Rights

Reproductive Rights

Rights of the Poor

Students Rights

Voting Rights

Women's Rights

Being a part of any group doesn't give anyone any special "rights."

Invariably these other "rights" infringe on actual individual rights.

[RadCap]

Ginz - your question was answered. Yet you turn around and try to claim they DO uphold certain 'principles' despite and in contradiction to the examples already provided. For each example you site, another can be provided (and in many cases ALREADY has been provided) which shows they do NOT uphold the principle, but in fact fight against it. This is why I state they are a left-leaning libertarian-styled organization. They do not actually uphold principles, but a collection of concrete-bound and contradictory 'rights'.

The point is, enough examples have already been provided to demonstrate they do not uphold the principle of individual rights (nor any other objectivist principle). That they defend or attack a particular concrete instance which an objectivist might also, does not change this fact. It does not change their actual principles (or lackthereof).

So the reason why one would not link to them in general is quite apparent.

As to your NEW question: why one does not provide them with limited support (ie in particular instances and not others), the reason is the same one does not provide support to any libertarian group. I assume you are familiar with the Objectivist stand on libertarianism. If not, I suggest further reading, including "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty"

[Guest ginzershop]

"Invariably these other "rights" infringe on actual individual rights. "

Invariably, huh?? How does ensuring that an individual immigrant gets due process rights infring on my individual rights??

But the idea that the group is out to ensure "group rights" is preposterosterous. If for instance they were out to ensure the "welfare of blacks" they would never defend the KKK (as they have done) if they were out to defend "the rights of poor people" they would never defend Nike (as they have done) If they were out to defend the "welfare of christians" they would never defend atheist students (As they have done) If they were out to "ensure the welfare of women" they would never defend Larry Flynt and other Pornographers (As they have done)

Generally, these sorts of blanket statements about "group rights" apply more towards groups such as the NAACP (literally for the advancement of colored people) or NOW (National Organization of Women)

IF Look at ACLU's mission statement OR talk to anyone who does work for the group and they will tell you that the reason they defend particular groups is because a threat of one persons rights generally leads to the threat of many peoples rights

[RadCap]

It is not "preposterous" when one is not dealing with principle. The ACLU upholds group 'rights', economic 'rights', and a host of other non-rights and it is THESE rights, not the straw man you set up, which invariably conflicts with actual rights.

When a person or an organization upholds such contradictory rights, there is necessarily a conflict BETWEEN 'rights' (ie your right to 'fair' housing conflicts with my right to own such housing). Therefore it is quite conceivable (and since the contradiction has already been show, quite evident) that the ACLU will uphold the rights of one 'group' in a particular instance, and in the next fight against the very same group.

So your claim that the ACLU could not be said to be upholding group rights because sometimes they fight for a group and sometimes they fight against it is simply false.

I have to assume (especially given the first part of your response to NIJames) that you are not very familiar with objectivism (specifically as it pertains to the concept rights). As such, I would suggest further reading on the subject, especially Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

[AshRyan]

Currently the ACLU is involved in a very high-profile case here in Utah defending the alleged right of free speech of some "street preachers" to shout obscenities at Mormons...on Mormon property. It's not good enough for them to stand on the public street a block away to demonstrate (and I don't think they should even be able to do that, given what their "demonstrations" consist of)--they have to be on Mormon property so they can scream nasty things at newly-weds who are just coming out of the Mormon temple in which their wedding ceremony was performed.

Now, I'm no fan of the Mormon church, or temple marraiges, or any of the stuff...but to uphold "free speech" as a floating absolute and using it to undermine property rights is one of the greatest perversions of "liberty" I've ever seen. If they're going to uphold that consistently, then I should be forced to allow a communist into my home and say whatever he likes. That's the ACLU's stand, and that's what their defense of liberty amounts to.

[Old Geezer]

"Currently the ACLU is involved in a very high-profile case here in Utah defending the alleged right of free speech of some "street preachers" to shout obscenities at Mormons...on Mormon property."

Ash... it was sort of a dance to not mention the easement on the property. Especially since easements carry with them an actual relaxation of key aspects of property rights.

[AshRyan]

Ash... it was sort of a dance to not mention the easement on the property. Especially since easements carry with them an actual relaxation of key aspects of property rights.

That was a utility easement, similar to the one you probably have on your property. Keeping the context in mind, that does not give anyone the right to come on your property and say or do whatever they wish.

I'm done with you. I hope others will follow mine and RadCap's example and stop sanctioning your irrationality by engaging in these farcical "debates" with you.

[Capleton]

When I was an atheist without an integrated philosophy I supported the ACLU but no more. The main reason that I do not support the ACLU is that they tend to champion "positive rights". In essence, their stated goals are contradictory in that they evitably undermine individual rights.

NB: I did not give concrete examples because this has already been done.

[AshRyan]

The main reason that I do not support the ACLU is that they tend to champion "positive rights". In essence, their stated goals are contradictory in that they evitably undermine individual rights.

Yes, just as the U.N. does in their "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Just because an organization claims to uphold rights doesn't mean that they actually do so, even if occasionally they actually do in some particular instance (by pure coincidence). That would require them to understand the justification of rights, what rights we actually have, etc. These organizations clearly do not.

NB: I did not give concrete examples because this has already been done.

Exactly. The ways in which the ACLU consistently violates this this principle have already been pointed out ad nauseum (and yet some people still manage to ignore that fact).

[Old Geezer]

"That was a utility easement, similar to the one you probably have on your property. "

not very similar at all a public access easement allows people, not pipes onto a property.... if someone walked onto my property without my consent I could have them arrested for trespassing.

[Bearster]

The ACLU is the biggest single reason of why "Freedom of Speech" is the intrinsicist, contextless, unquestioned, floating abstraction that it is today.

If a newspaper refuses to publish an article or a letter, that is "censorship."

If a forum moderator bans someone, he is a "fascist."

If a radio station gives air time to one candidate for office, but not the others, that is "unfair".

Context-dropping!

There is no such thing as a "right" to force someone else to pay (or use his plant, presses, radio tower, etc.) for your opinion.

The ACLU evades this point, with monstrous consequences.

I am not sure I would call them "libertarians". I would call them "liberals", in the sense of sympathizing with criminals, favoring welfare, feminism, socialism, etc. Kinda like "Democrats".