Talk:Civil libertarianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Abortion

I removed the sentence "Civil libertarians would also be likely to campaign against the death penalty and abortion regulation."

It didn't necessarily seem true. For instance, even civil libertarians support laws against murder, and if you see abortion as murder, then a law against it makes perfect sense. I don't think this statement is correct. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:14, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Similarly stating that civil libertarians are usually pro-drug use is disturbing. I'm sure I'm not. Wouter Lievens 21:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts on the abortion thing. However, I think some mention should be made of abortion in the article, since regardless of wheter it should be or not (I don't think it should) it is often thought of as a civil liberties issue, and many civil libertiarians support abortion rights on those grounds. Some civil libertarians think of it as murder and oppose it on those grounds, but since that is a factual question about which people disagree it can both ways. The ACLU is a prominent supporter of abortion rights. Snowboardpunk 23:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I would say that it is necessary to separate civil libertarians from libertarians or economic libertarians simply because they can have vastly different economic solutions. Since this is a political affiliation, the particular brand of economics endorsed is exceptionally important. As far as the defining civil libertarians goes, however, it is extremely difficult because they vary largely. While they all vehemently support the defense of civil liberties, they often differ largely (amongst themselves) on what is and isn't justified taxation and governing. Also, the term "pro drug use" is misleading. Just because a civil libertarian supports the RIGHT to use, does not mean they are "pro drug-use," and trying to persuade people to actively consume cocaine. --Spiritualspatula 06:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is terrible in its current form. The first sentence is vague and utterly fails to define its terms. The second paragraph lacks all cohesion. There is no delineation of the actual political philosophy, nor is there any mention of the prominence of civil libertarian viewpoints in recent issues and debates. I am working on a rewrite. --Demflan 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's all I can do tonight. I'd like to expand this article considerably, however, and add a section on organizations and individuals with civil libertarian viewpoints, a section on civil libertarianism in post-9/11 America, and a section on the history of civil libertarianism as something distinct from other forms of libertarianism. --Demflan 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Civil Libertarianism vs Libertarianism Distinction

Civil Libertarianism is not Libertarianism as I understand it. It is an incomplete ideology that tends to be comprised of political positions such as freedom of speech and press, and a peripheral interest in minority rights or 'equality'. Because Civil Libertarianism only addresses certain issues pertaining to liberty but not others, its proponents are incapable of, or unwilling to apply the principles of liberty to their ultimate conclusions as is found in Libertarianism. This often leads to contradicting positions on contemporary political issues such as television and internet censorship, or citizenship/immigration.

Libertarianism is a belief in non-aggression and freedom from force or coercion. Civil Libertarianism tends to deal with speech rights and equality in pursuit of afforementioned rights.

Sadly, I don't think that Civil Libertarianism has been well-defined, but it surely ought to stand as an independent topic.

This topic would be improved by amalgamating the positions of the American Civil Liberties Union and other self-ascribed 'Civil Libertarians'. The beliefs of the movement are in greater flux as opposed to Libertarianism. 64.30.62.72 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Civil Libertarianism = Libertarianism - (Econimic Libertarianism)

It seems to me that the current article is describing a subset of Liberalism versus truly describing Civil Libertarianism.

It's always been my understanding that Civil Libertarianism is Libertarianism minus the economic issues.

So a strict Civil Libertarian believes that each individual has the right to be free to do whatever they desire (and reap or suffer the consequences of their actions) so long as they do not "forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

So this means getting the government out of legislating morality or paternal laws that protect people from themselves.

From this stance a strict Civil Libertarian would insist that many things be legal even if they personally found those things stupid, disgusting and/or personally dangerous to people consensually involved.

So, directly flowing from this, a strict Civil Libertarian would be in favor of legalizing (although not necessarily participating in, or personally supporting/recommending the activities themselves.):

• Complete freedom of speech (Including things like: denying the Holocaust; the KKK marching and then burning crosses on their own property; flag burning, etc.)
• Personal drug use
• Prostitution
• All sex acts, living arrangements and marriages between consenting adults. This would include legalizing such things as: BDSM; adult incest; same-sex marriage; marriage between more than two people (polyamorous/polygamous marriages), marriage between adult cousins, siblings, mother/son, father/daughter etc. ...
• Full religious freedom. Free from being forced to participate or not participate in any type of religious activity (that doesn't forcibly interfere with others).

I know that many people might call themselves a Civil Libertarain and not want to give individuals all the freedom as outlined above. But it's my understanding that the radicalness/extremeness/purity/consistency is what distinquishes Libertarianism from Liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoping To Help (talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge

This article should be merged for two reasons: 1) It does not make a clear distinction between "civil libertarianism" and general "libertarianism". If such a distinction exists, it should be clarified. 2) If a distinction can be articulated, I suspect it does not warrant it's own page, but should instead be a subsection of libertarianism in general.

Thoughts? Queerudite 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It should have been long ago. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this need to be separate article

Does this actually need to be a separate article? Isn't a civil libertarian just someone who strongly supports civil liberties? That's how I usually hear the term used; for example, to describe members of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. --Delirium 06:53, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's broader than that. The terms have different connotations. I'm not sure there's a "civil liberty" to watch porn, but "civil libertarians" make a big deal out of it.Dave

It should be merged to civil liberties. CarolMooreDC (talk)

It shouldn't be merged. You don't want to merge the Liberty article with the Libertarians article, so the same standard should just be employed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.7.57 (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Civil Libertarianism vs ACLU

Support for the ACLU does not necessarily equate to Civil Libertarianism, as many may support the ACLU on one issue, but disagree with it on another, meaning they may not be Civil Libertarians in general, merely supporting the ACLU on a specific issue. Moreover, a Civil Libertarian can also disagree with aspects or policies of the ACLU. The ACLU is a political organization, whereas Civil Libertarianism is an ideology. Thus, I think this article should remain separte from both "Libertarianism" and "American Civil Liberties Union." 24.149.203.252

I agree with this. Im strongly civil libertarian and the ACLU does not represent it well. The ACLU is too partial to liberal causes. Notably the ACLU has gone against religious freedom as we see with crosses being banned for memorials. Civil libertarian is not partial. Just as I would not use The Cato Institute since it is partial to conservative causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.2.189 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Civil liberties

• The two short references do not support the long WP:Original research article. And one is not even WP:RS.
• "Civil libertarianism" is used merely as a description of consistent application of civil liberties, but it's still redundant to put in its own article if someone actually came up with the relevant sources.
• A mention of those who support civil liberties as civil libertarians is sufficient. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I will merge it soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this matter, but if the article is merged or deleted, would someone be so kind as to remove it from the main libertarianism article? It has been included under "see also" as, to date, this page still exists. fi (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

Looking at past discussions here, there seems to be some confusion about this ideology. Just for clarification, civil libertarianism is a concern for civil liberties and, often, human rights and civil rights. It is also the name of strand of libertarianism. I have seen articles here like Consumerism describe the different meaning an ideology might have in another context (e.g., "In the domain of politics, the term 'consumerism' has also been used to refer to something quite different called the consumerists' movement..."). Here, the difference is slight (there is a lot of overlap), but there still is a difference as civil libertarianism there is a philosophy/rationale that seeks to limit government involvement in certain areas. Because of this, I have divided the article and made a separate section.

Further edits and research are welcome. --Precision123 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)