Civil Libertarians?

[TrippyHippy]

From Wikipedia:

The primary concern of the civil libertarian is the relationship of the government to the individual. In theory, the civil libertarian seeks to restrict this relationship to an absolute minimum in which the state can function and provide basic services and securities without excessively interfering in the lives of its citizens. One key cause of civil libertarianism is upholding free speech.[2] Specifically, civil libertarians oppose bans on hate speech and obscenity.[2] Although they may or may not personally condone behaviors associated with these issues, civil libertarians hold that the advantages of unfettered public discourse outweigh all disadvantages.[2]

Other civil libertarian positions include support for at least partial legalization of illicit substances (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD and other soft drugs), privacy, assisted dying or euthanasia, the right to bear arms, topfree equality, criminal justice reform, a strong demarcation between religion and politics and more recently support for same-sex marriage.

In the past twenty years, with the advent of personal computers, the Internet, email, cell phones and other information technology advances a subset of civil libertarianism has arisen that focuses on protecting individuals' digital rights and privacy. The organization most closely affiliated with this sort of civil libertarianism is the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

How many of you identify as civil libertarians? I'm curious and want to get a feel for who all identifies with this political mindset, since it tends to be bipartisan.



Edit: By civil authoritarian I mean support for a security state, safety at the expense of some rights. Someone who believes in continuing the drug war, internet censorship, the TSA, domestic survelliance, harsher criminal penalties, and such would fall under this category.

 

[Sirthinksalot]

I understand we need some government to provide national security and uphold the rule of law. I don't buy into social engineering and government control of people's lives. Things like carbon taxes, meat rations, gun control, sin taxes... That garbage has no place in the US.

 

[Damocles]

From Wikipedia:



How many of you identify as civil libertarians? I'm curious and want to get a feel for who all identifies with this political mindset, since it tends to be bipartisan.



Edit: By civil authoritarian I mean support for a security state, safety at the expense of some rights. Someone who believes in continuing the drug war, internet censorship, the TSA, domestic survelliance, harsher criminal penalties, and such would fall under this category.

And "Social Justice" offered by excessive taxation and income redistribution I would assume.

 

[Nordberg]

Our excessive taxes the right talks about were at 60 year lows when Trump got in office.We are not over taxed. But almost nobody wants to pay taxes. It is so easy to piss people off when you bring up taxes.

 

[TrippyHippy]

And "Social Justice" offered by excessive taxation and income redistribution I would assume.

I'd assume libertarians are against that, civil libertarian is only a stance based on civil liberty issues though.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

"Other civil libertarian positions include support for at least partial legalization of illicit substances (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD and other soft drugs), privacy, assisted dying or euthanasia, the right to bear arms, topfree equality, criminal justice reform, a strong demarcation between religion and politics and more recently support for same-sex marriage."

In general I support these positions also. I'm not sure though what is meant by "criminal justice reform" so will hold off on that till more is known.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Our excessive taxes the right talks about were at 60 year lows when Trump got in office.We are not over taxed. But almost nobody wants to pay taxes. It is so easy to piss people off when you bring up taxes.

I'm more pissed off because of what our taxes are spent on. They are too high, and they don't have to be. Alot of money is spent on war, enforcing victimless crimes, bureaucracy, government surveillance, corporate bailouts/subsidies, and the like. Alot of money is just plain wasted too because of lacking efficiency, pork barrel spending, or government departments spending all of their budget, even if they find a surplus, so it doesn't decrease next quarter. Congressional pay and office budgets are also way too high. Rand Paul gave most of his office budget back to the treasury and still somehow found a way to function. And our congressman were originally intended to be common people, with jobs outside of politics. A stipend covering the very basic cost of living during the congressional session (which is only about 138 days a year) would be better.

Hell, even the morally righteous spending like our social spending is straight wasted in the red tape and bureaucracy of government. Our welfare system is woefully incompetent, inefficient, and easily taken advantage of. A universal basic income system would actually save money while taking care of the basic needs of all our citizens. This is something even strong fiscally conservative type economists like Milton Friedman have talked about.

Taxes can be decreased heavily without losing much of anything important. Our government just needs to pick up a 'Budgeting for Dummies' book and a swift kick to the ass. And learn to manage our money better.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I'm more pissed off because of what our taxes are spent on. They are too high, and they don't have to be. Alot of money is spent on war, enforcing victimless crimes, bureaucracy, government surveillance, corporate bailouts/subsidies, and the like. Alot of money is just plain wasted too because of lacking efficiency, pork barrel spending, or government departments spending all of their budget, even if they find a surplus, so it doesn't decrease next quarter. Congressional pay and office budgets are also way too high. Rand Paul gave most of his office budget back to the treasury and still somehow found a way to function. And our congressman were originally intended to be common people, with jobs outside of politics. A stipend covering the very basic cost of living during the congressional session (which is only about 138 days a year) would be better.

Hell, even the morally righteous spending like our social spending is straight wasted in the red tape and bureaucracy of government. Our welfare system is woefully incompetent, inefficient, and easily taken advantage of. A universal basic income system would actually save money while taking care of the basic needs of all our citizens. This is something even strong fiscally conservative type economists like Milton Friedman have talked about.

Taxes can be decreased heavily without losing much of anything important. Our government just needs to pick up a 'Budgeting for Dummies' book and a swift kick to the ass. And learn to manage our money better.

Hear hear.

We've all bitched and moaned about government waste over the years. So how do we get that under control?

 

[TrippyHippy]

"Other civil libertarian positions include support for at least partial legalization of illicit substances (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD and other soft drugs), privacy, assisted dying or euthanasia, the right to bear arms, topfree equality, criminal justice reform, a strong demarcation between religion and politics and more recently support for same-sex marriage."

In general I support these positions also. I'm not sure though what is meant by "criminal justice reform" so will hold off on that till more is known.

Yeah, that is pretty vague.

As I understand it, civil libertarians believe in rehabilitation and harm reduction over hard line criminal punishment. Abolishing mandatory minimums, improving prison conditions, higher wages for prison work, offering legitimate drug rehab programs, GED and college classes, etc. Also de-privatizing the prison system is a major cause, as we believe this creates a financial incentive to imprison people where there often wouldn't be.

 

[CFM]

From Wikipedia:



How many of you identify as civil libertarians? I'm curious and want to get a feel for who all identifies with this political mindset, since it tends to be bipartisan.



Edit: By civil authoritarian I mean support for a security state, safety at the expense of some rights. Someone who believes in continuing the drug war, internet censorship, the TSA, domestic survelliance, harsher criminal penalties, and such would fall under this category.

Support for harsher penalties for harsher crimes doesn't make one a civil authoritarian. Believing it does means you means you think one person's right to do something they want to do can be done at the expense of someone else's rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you, like the forum member SmarterThanYou, believe it's OK for someone to drive drunk and it only be addressed AFTER they harm or kill an innocent person?

 

[CFM]

Hear hear.

We've all bitched and moaned about government waste over the years. So how do we get that under control?

Stop spending it on things for which the Constitution doesn't grant Congress the authority to do so.

 

[CFM]

Yeah, that is pretty vague.

As I understand it, civil libertarians believe in rehabilitation and harm reduction over hard line criminal punishment. Abolishing mandatory minimums, improving prison conditions, higher wages for prison work, offering legitimate drug rehab programs, GED and college classes, etc. Also de-privatizing the prison system is a major cause, as we believe this creates a financial incentive to imprison people where there otherwise wouldn't be.

In other words you believe we should go easier on criminals, make it a country club, pay them because they're where they are due to THEIR actions, and provide them with an education that everyone one of them already had a chance to get prior to choosing to commit the crime that put them in prison. Got it.

Since there is only one person that can choose whether or not they change, and it isn't either one of us, prison is for punishment not a social time to hang out with others that chose to do the wrong thing.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Support for harsher penalties for harsher crimes doesn't make one a civil authoritarian. Believing it does means you means you think one person's right to do something they want to do can be done at the expense of someone else's rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Violent crimes that actually endanger people are only some of the crimes people get put in prison for. And yes, generally speaking, supporting harsher penalties rather than rehabilitation and harm reduction would make you a civil authoritarian. You believe in strong authority and strict, rigid laws regarding civil matters. Harsh punishment for deterrence. Not accusing you of being for North Korean conditions. An extreme civil authoritarian would be, but these things tend to be on a spectrum.

Do you, like the forum member SmarterThanYou, believe it's OK for someone to drive drunk and it only be addressed AFTER they harm or kill an innocent person?

No, that is ridiculous. Driving drunk is driving recklessly, endangering other drivers. Just like you can't drive 100mph, you shouldn't be able to drive drunk either. Although I do believe one should be found to be driving recklessly and legitimately under the influence. There is a rather large distinction between having a beer in your hand and actually driving drunk. Especially if you take into account the high tolerance of some people.

 

[WinterBorn]

From Wikipedia:



How many of you identify as civil libertarians? I'm curious and want to get a feel for who all identifies with this political mindset, since it tends to be bipartisan.



Edit: By civil authoritarian I mean support for a security state, safety at the expense of some rights. Someone who believes in continuing the drug war, internet censorship, the TSA, domestic survelliance, harsher criminal penalties, and such would fall under this category.

This is as close to my political beliefs as you are likely to see in a generalized statement.

I believe the federal gov't should be smaller and far less intrusive. The use of taxation for social engineering should be absolutely banned (One of the reasons I support the Fair Tax Act).

 

[CFM]

Violent crimes that actually endanger people are only some of the crimes people get put in prison for.



No, that is ridiculous. Driving drunk is driving recklessly, endangering other drivers. Just like you can't drive 90mph on a neighborhood road, you shouldn't be able to drive drunk either. Although I do believe one should be found to be driving recklessly. There is a rather large distinction between having a beer in your hand and actually driving drunk.

Are you saying that no non-violent offenders should be in prison?

Perhaps you should talk to STY. You both consider yourselves civil libertarians yet have distinctly different views.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Are you saying that no non-violent offenders should be in prison?

No, but they should not be treated as if they are as dangerous as violent offenders. As far as victimless crimes go however, those shouldn't be crimes at all anyway.

Perhaps you should talk to STY. You both consider yourselves civil libertarians yet have distinctly different views.

You really have a solid black & white way of viewing the world, don't you?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Dedicated to CFM:

 

[CFM]

No, but they should not be treated as if they are as dangerous as violent offenders. As far as victimless crimes go however, those shouldn't be crimes at all anyway.



You really have a solid black & white way of viewing the world, don't you?

They aren't treated the same way. Someone committing a non-violent crime that warrants prison time doesn't get the same sentence as a violent offender.

There's no such thing as a victimless crime.

I've talked to him. Where do you think I got the information I provided you about his beliefs on drunk driving? He'll say he doesn't yet he's used an example of a family member being killed by a drunk driver as acceptable because to have addressed it prior by doing things designed to protect the rights of the innocent person would have been a violation of the driver's rights. I support many of the concepts Libertarians believe. However, I find that so many of them are night and day difference, just as this example, that I prefer not to be associated with them.

Wikipedia, a source you referenced, says " Civil libertarianism is not a complete ideology".

Many things in the world are black and white, far more than those of you that want to make them gray want to believe.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Yeah, that is pretty vague.

As I understand it, civil libertarians believe in rehabilitation and harm reduction over hard line criminal punishment. Abolishing mandatory minimums, improving prison conditions, higher wages for prison work, offering legitimate drug rehab programs, GED and college classes, etc. Also de-privatizing the prison system is a major cause, as we believe this creates a financial incentive to imprison people where there often wouldn't be.

I'm in favor of most of that.... particularly the de-privatizing of what must be a government function. We allow the government to prosecute accused criminals on behalf of "the people." So why are we abdicating the responsibility of incarcerating them to civilian corporations?

If companies want to take advantage of the fact that we have a huge prison population, instead of letting them run the prisons (which gives them an incentive to keep more ppl in), instead let them run educational/rehab services inside the prisons and hire former inmates when they are released.

We also need to address the mental health issues of the incarcerated. Some should never be released, obviously -- molesters, sex predators, psychopaths who rape and/or murder. But some of those ppl are there because they have mental issues that led to criminal behavior.

 

[CFM]

Dedicated to CFM:

The only thing you're doing is proving your cowardice.