From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ACLU dogmatism
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:01:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr6.165129.19557@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.030132.16521@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>It's hard to imagine what the ACLU does being labeled as "obstructionism";
>>they don't block clinics like Operation Rescue or conduct sit-ins like
>>ACT-UP.  They take the government TO COURT when they disagree.  They
>>don't obstruct anything; they use the judicial system to protect our rights.

>I'll concede that Operation Rescue and ACT-UP are worse than the ACLU, but
>that doesn't excuse the ACLU.  I view its role in the "The Little
>Library That Could" case as pure obstructionism: the ACLU is cluttering up
>the court system with frivolous lawsuits in order to keep a town from

The lower court didn't think it was frivolous; not only that, they *agreed*
with the ACLU.  Try again.

>providing a service for itself (how many suburban taxpayers are going to
			^^^^^^^
And this guy isn't part of the town?

>support a public library once it degenerates into a facsimile of the NYC
>subway system?).

Libertarians would argue that a public library shouldn't exist at all
for that very reason.  I disagree, but I assume libertarians would agree
with me on this point: *IF* we have a public library, it has to be PUBLIC.
You don't get to arbitrarily exclude people because you don't like the
way they look (or smell).  

And your "slippery slope" theory is ridiculous in this case; there
aren't hordes of homeless people descending on the library.  I don't see
that taxpayers are rushing to elect people who promise to close the
library, either.  And if they did?   What's the difference if they close
a public library which isn't public, anyway?

>                  The  ACLU approach doesn't protect "our rights."

It protects the rights of ANYONE who wants to use a PUBLIC library.
Once you start banning people arbitrarily, maybe you'll ban people who
fit the "profile" of a drug dealer.  (ie they're minorities.)

>It protects the rights of one troublemaker at the expense of the
>rights of an entire community.  More importantly, it doesn't defend this

Communities don't have rights.  People have rights.  And he wasn't a
troublemaker.  He was a guy who wanted to use the library.  Neither I
nor the ACLU would have ANY problem with barring people who made noise
or beat up other people or tried to eat in the library.  This guy was 
barred for smelling.

>person's right to be left alone, but rather his right to *not* leave alone
>everyone else!  If you view it from an economic perspective, the ACLU is
>supporting an inefficient policy rule.

If you view it from an economic perspective, this whole thing is
inefficient; we should just let the community shoot this person; he's only a 
drain on everyone's resources.

*HOW* exactly is it an inefficient policy to allow anyone to use the library?

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns