I'm thinking about voting for Bush- talk me out of it

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The problem is that you equate by definition liberty with privacy

Privacy is an important liberty. As important as our liberty to free speech. When the government knows everything about us, it can use that information for nefarious ends. Look at the abuses done by the Nixon Administration.

By keeping information OUT of the hands of government, there is less oppertunity for abuses.

suppose the patriot act had been in force when Nixon was president. How would it have played out differently?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If I can volunteer as much infomation about my behavior as I want without automatically declaring that the audience has a right to control my behavior then it also follows that if I accept for others to have access to that infomation then I am likewise not automatically declaring that they may control my behavior.

But you are giving them increased power to do so. When they realize your personal habits, they can more easily constrict them. If we look at your children example, you are looking at the wrong thing. The government does control how you parent, in MANY ways. So perhaps that is not the best example you wish to use.

Listen, there is a reason that the Enlightenment wanted greatly to protect people's privacy. And it is no coincidence that totalitarian states first crack down the privacy of its citizens. By knowing what everyone does, it can more easily restrict those people. It knows if everyone is following capricious laws, or if someone is acting out.

Look at the countries which don't have some right to privacy protected. Cuba, China, most Mid East countries. And not coincidentally they control a lot of their citizen's rights. Do you think that is an example we should be emulating?

[Ben Kenobi]

You are against the right to privacy, which may be just as important as any other right you have.

I think you need liberty and life before you can hope to have a right to privacy.

What use is it to be private when you are not free in the first place?

[Geronimo]

- [EDIT]why did I only just now realize that DD was addressing Diss and not me?- sorry DD

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If I can volunteer as much infomation about my behavior as I want without automatically declaring that the audience has a right to control my behavior then it also follows that if I accept for others to have access to that infomation then I am likewise not automatically declaring that they may control my behavior.

But you are giving them increased power to do so. When they realize your personal habits, they can more easily constrict them. If we look at your children example, you are looking at the wrong thing. The government does control how you parent, in MANY ways. So perhaps that is not the best example you wish to use.

Listen, there is a reason that the Enlightenment wanted greatly to protect people's privacy. And it is no coincidence that totalitarian states first crack down the privacy of its citizens. By knowing what everyone does, it can more easily restrict those people. It knows if everyone is following capricious laws, or if someone is acting out.

Look at the countries which don't have some right to privacy protected. Cuba, China, most Mid East countries. And not coincidentally they control a lot of their citizen's rights. Do you think that is an example we should be emulating?

Imran suppose I oppose this government control of how I parent. Is the right way for me to express this opposition a refusal to provide to the government any information about my children or is it to oppose the laws it is using to constrain me in the first place? It sounds a little like you believe that if I were opposed to drinking age the right response would be to have the government forbid bars from asking patrons their age rather than ask the government to repeal the drinking age laws. It just continues to seem so backarsewards to me. Can you at least see where I'm coming from on this yet?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It sounds a little like you believe that if I were opposed to drinking age the right response would be to have the government forbid bars from asking patrons their age rather than ask the government to repeal the drinking age laws.

Actually both would work fine. If you can't get the government to repeal the drinking law, by having them pass a law saying that the bars can't ask people their age, you have effectively neutered the law. A better example, though, is the drug law, which plays more to privacy. Instead of banning drugs, if you put great limits into how much the feds can pry into your life in doing drugs, the law banning drugs would be severly weakened.

What use is it to be private when you are not free in the first place?

To be free you need privacy. Without it, freedom doesn't exist.

[Ben Kenobi]

To be free you need privacy. Without it, freedom doesn't exist.

There is an explicit right to liberty enshrined in the constitution, but not a similar right to privacy.

Arguments for a right to privacy are all based on extentions of the right to liberty, so liberty must come first, and take primacy over any right to privacy.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It sounds a little like you believe that if I were opposed to drinking age the right response would be to have the government forbid bars from asking patrons their age rather than ask the government to repeal the drinking age laws.

Actually both would work fine. If you can't get the government to repeal the drinking law, by having them pass a law saying that the bars can't ask people their age, you have effectively neutered the law. A better example, though, is the drug law, which plays more to privacy. Instead of banning drugs, if you put great limits into how much the feds can pry into your life in doing drugs, the law banning drugs would be severly weakened.

Imran, doesn't such a dual track system lead to the situation where the degree to which the law applies to someone is dependant entriely on how public one's life becomes? what kind of freedom is that? If we allow people to escape the law by hiding from it then we are short circuiting the democratic process. People who oppose a law will not participate in politically opposing it if they can simply hide from it while people who cannot hide will have to oppose it alone.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What use is it to be private when you are not free in the first place?

To be free you need privacy. Without it, freedom doesn't exist.

Suppose there really was a Santa claus and he really knew who was naughty or nice. In that imaginary situation, are none of us then free because this guy at the north pole knows everything about us and will even choose whether or not to give us presents based on how he judges our behavior? Suppose I became clairevoyant to the extant that I knew everything about everybody, would our freedom cease to exist along with our privacy? It seems patently obvious that freedom and privacy are discrete separate entities.

you seem to believe freedom is nothing but ones success at getting away with ones actions rather than an entitlement to control our own fates.



--By the way, Diss I apologize for the thread jack, I've been meaning to post my own thread on the nature and role of privacy in society but lack of response on other forums and threads discouraged me. But I'm not trolling I genuinely care about this issue--

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It sounds a little like you believe that if I were opposed to drinking age the right response would be to have the government forbid bars from asking patrons their age rather than ask the government to repeal the drinking age laws.

Actually both would work fine. If you can't get the government to repeal the drinking law, by having them pass a law saying that the bars can't ask people their age, you have effectively neutered the law. A better example, though, is the drug law, which plays more to privacy. Instead of banning drugs, if you put great limits into how much the feds can pry into your life in doing drugs, the law banning drugs would be severly weakened.
.

Actually there is another side I can approach this from. Purjury is illegal. It is illegal to lie under oath in a court of law. Now are you saying that it is right to lie under oath if you are tried for breaking a law you disagree with? If so can we as a society ever justify punishing purjury when we structure our entire system of government under the premise that the best way to oppose a law you don't like is by not getting caught?

[Thue]

How about the fact that Bush invaded Iraq on false premises. A big part of the argumentation was that Iraq was connected to 9/11, a claim informed people now know have little basis in reality (though it seems that 50% af Americans still believe there were Iraqies among the hijackers).

Or the whole weapons of mass destruction thing.

In either case the Bush administration was either lying to the public, knowing better but letting themselves be decieved, or grossly incompetent. Take your pick.

I know one can argue that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy who deserved to be overthrown, and I agree to some degree. But that doesn't change the fact that administrations way to sell the war was wrong. I don't trust leaders who act that way. While John Kerry may not be the most inspirering leader, he sounds like he wouldn't make mistakes like that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

when we structure our entire system of government under the premise that the best way to oppose a law you don't like is by not getting caught?

That's a nice attempt at a strawman, but try again. No one has said the best way to oppose any law is to avoid getting caught. Though having privacy may allow a way to circumvent an unjust law which may not be officially changed any time soon, such as the drug laws. It's my private residence, and no one should be able to peek in there.

If we allow people to escape the law by hiding from it then we are short circuiting the democratic process.

Good, sometimes the democratic process isn't the best thing. When the Courts decide an issue they may be subverting the democratic process, but that is a good.

Arguments for a right to privacy are all based on extentions of the right to liberty, so liberty must come first, and take primacy over any right to privacy.

Freedom is, at its base, the right to be left alone. Free speech is about being able to say what you want and be left alone even though you say it. Freedom to work is about working wherever you want and being left alone no matter what that job is.

Privacy is a necessary extention.

[child of Thor]

erm....if as we've established in the 'alien signals' thread, that the fungoo federation is responible for life on our planet and the way it is evolving - then Mr Bush as the most likely candidate for controlling the most powerful country in the world, is most likely an agent of the fungoo.
So a vote for Bush is a vote for an alien race we know nothing about - their incentives and plans for the rest of humankind.

Also the last bit in my signature says something(trees=life in the equation)

[OzzyKP]

I can't in good concience vote for Badnarik, because honestly he's not qualified to be president.

Yea, but he isn't going to win anyways, so you don't have to worry about him becoming President. A vote for Badnarik is more a protest vote than anything. If enough people vote for Badnarik, the Repubs will wake up and realize their "borrow, spend & conquer" policies are alienating voters that could potentially be part of their coalition (libertarians) and may seek to adjust their policies accordingly.

If you are dissatisfied with Bush, then by all means don't vote for him. A vote for Bush sends the message that you agree with him. If you don't, let him know by voting Badnarik.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Be fair, Imran; he kept that promise. After all, can you name a nation he's built?

[Thorn]

Privacy you can argue with whoever forever, but the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. end of story.