3 ms·
They are specifically civil-libertarians and not in fact “right wing.” The in fact do a ton of work on behalf of poor people to help ensure that justice is avai
by ch4s3 2y ago
They are specifically civil-libertarians and not in fact “right wing.” The in fact do a ton of work on behalf of poor people to help ensure that justice is available regardless of your financial means.
- metabagel 2y agoSure, but it's a narrow kind of justice in service of the type of society they would like to live in - one which doesn't happen to have any social safety net, public services, regulations, professional licensing, etc. And again, I think it's great that they took this case, because it's egregious. But, I just don't support their broader agenda.
- paranoidrobot 2y agoI don't see any evidence that they're against these things. Care to provide some kind of citations?
- ch4s3 2y agoFighting exclusionary zoning, corrupt uses of imminent domain, and abusive civil forfeiture are among the primary goals of the IJ. None of that undermines a safety net or public services. Historically in the US professional licensing has primarily existed to exclude immigrants and racial minorities from lucrative careers, and should be reformed as a moral imperative. This is not a right wing position.
- zmgsabst 2y agoRight wing populists do those things too; their disagreement is about how to administer those programs. That’s part of what facilitated the political rotation where left and right populists formed the Unity Party (Trump, Kennedy, Gabbard, et al), while classic statists such as Cheney and Clinton allied into the Uniparty.