From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: ACLU dogmatism
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:25:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.180140.17286@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>The lower court didn't think it was frivolous; not only that, they *agreed*
>with the ACLU.  Try again.

So there are loony lawyers *and* loony judges.  And the first are often
clever enough to make sure that the latter are the ones who get first
crack at their cases.  Why should I try again when I got it right the
first time?

>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:

Your point about Libertarians is irrelevant, because the ACLU (and
the whole liberal-left community) has no respect for private property
rights; these people harass private organizations for being "unfair" all the
time.  I am not a Libertarian, but I have more respect for them than
I do for the ACLU.

>*IF* we have a public library, it has to be PUBLIC.

Says you.  Bronx High School of Science isn't open to the whole public.
The White House isn't open to the whole public.  Apparently, there are
often good reasons for the public to fund something that not everyone
can use.  And since when is some lazy bum who doesn't pay a dime in
taxes a full-fledged member of the "public"?  Maybe, an associate member!

>You don't get to arbitrarily exclude people because you don't like the
>way they look (or smell).  

Says you and the ACLU and the first judge.  I, the WSJ, and the second
judge apparently disagree.  Or maybe, we just think that a minimal
level of hygiene isn't "arbitrary."  (Also, the person's behavior
was unacceptable: he was staring at and following around the female
patrons, and he was only "using" the library as a place to hang out.
But I believe that his appearance and smell alone would be sufficient to
exclude him.  Kind of like "No Shoes, No Shirt: No Service", but instead
it is "No Bath: No Books.")

>And your "slippery slope" theory is ridiculous in this case; there
>aren't hordes of homeless people descending on the library.

First of all, it is not really a slippery slope argument: I believe it is
appropriate to exclude even a single obnoxious person whether there
are hordes or not.  But, in fact, in most major cities, there *are*
hordes of unkempt bums.  If I were a bum, and I had a choice between
staying outside in the cold and rain, and coming inside (whether inside
a library, a McDonald's or a college lecture hall), I know which I would
choose.  Which would you choose?

>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.)

But my side never conceded that the exclusion was "arbitrary."  Talk
about slippery slopes!

>Communities don't have rights.  People have rights.

Says you.  If I believed this, I would be an anarchist.  And if the
country believed it, we wouldn't have to pay taxes.

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

(1) How much would the bum pay for the privilege of using the library?
(2) How much would the average taxpayer pay to exclude the bum?
(3) How many people fall into each category?
(4) The math is left as an exercise for the reader.