Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE
The problem with the ACLU is this...
They operate under the assumption that everyone can simultaneously exercise their civil rights. It's a load of crap.
A right is not permission to do something, it is a restriction on the rights of others to prevent you from doing it. In other words, the only way to defend the rights of one is to infringe upon the rights of another.
At some point there is going to be a conflict between rights. At some point the ACLU will find itself incapable of defending the rights of both sides. Then they will have to take a side and they lose the ability to claim neutrality.
Whenever this happens, the ACLU is criticized by the other side. They tend to go liberal on most issues... That's why the right doesn't like them.
The only way to avoid this would be to sit out some of the most heated battles. I don't think the sort of people who work for the ACLU are the kind who can sit on their hands when something about which they are passionate comes up.
|
I disagree with your premise that someone exercising their individual rights has to be bad for someone else's rights. Sometimes there are competing rights, but I don't think it happens all that often or maybe we're not agreeing on the definition of rights. For example, if you were a middle class homeowner fighting your city because the city wants to take your property and give it to a developer to build a mall, the ACLU would likely be interested in speaking up for you. Only one individual's rights are in jeopardy in that case because the majority being able to shop at Niemann Marcus is not a right. The developer also doesn't have a right to have your property just because he has money or influence on city government. On the other hand, the government or someone else not being able to seize your individual property for frivolous reasons IS a Constitutional right.