> Being pro-civil liberties does not imply anti-government.
You're right, that's bad phrasing on my part.
I explained what I meant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18058240
The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on what the government can do. Of course you can support it and be anti-government.
The Bill Rights are amendments "to" the Constitution, the very document that establishes the legitimacy of the government in the first place. How can you accept the legitimacy of the government and be anti-government at the same time?
Even the Anti-Federalists, the group that advocated for the establishment of a Bill of Rights were not anti-government.
I take "anti-government" to mean that one is opposed to the actions that the government takes, in some situations, rather than being against the idea of the government. One can believe that a government is legitimate, while also believing that the government's power should be limited. One might argue that this idea is one of the core ideas of American government.
>"I take "anti-government" to mean that one is opposed to the actions that the government takes, in some situations, rather than being against the idea of the government."
That's silly, by that definition everyone would be anti-government then. Nobody agrees with the actions the government takes in all situations, not even within the same political party.
Can you provide a citation or examples of this? Being pro-civil liberties does not imply anti-government. Those aren't mutually exclusive.
In the US civil liberties are basic freedoms identified in the Bill or Rights and the Constitution. And the Constitution is what established the government in the first place. How is it possible to be pro-civil liberties and anti-government?