Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Big Brother is watching you: The 2007 International Privacy Ranking

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I think the fundamental question is individual vs. state and while there is a correlation between left-wing politics with libertarianism and right-wing politics with authoritarianism; I'm convinced that the economic aspect is incidental. For example, people with a good education a modicum of intelligence are generally inclined to an open society where they can use their talents and so they happen to dislike the 9-5 culture. It works the other way too.

    In terms of surveillance, I think it's more useful to abandon the old economic debate and think instead of liberalism vs. communitarianism. It's a conflict in Britain... I recommend reading Julian Baggini's essay "Across the great divide" on this.
    "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
    "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by C0ckney

      Do you have an argument against this?

      ...I thought not.
      Only feebs vote.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Whaleboy
        I think the fundamental question is individual vs. state and while there is a correlation between left-wing politics with libertarianism and right-wing politics with authoritarianism; I'm convinced that the economic aspect is incidental. For example, people with a good education a modicum of intelligence are generally inclined to an open society where they can use their talents and so they happen to dislike the 9-5 culture. It works the other way too.
        I disagree. Anti-authoritarians will privilege the individual, but that does not mean that authoritarians must privilege the state. There are plenty of authoritarians who would prefer to privilege private power because they see state power as a means of helping the unfortunate in our society and the withering of the state as a re-establishment of a properly hierarchical society.

        This is the point I was making about different kinds of Libertarians. Some will be more like anarchists, while some will be more like Locke and some of the US founders.

        In terms of surveillance, I think it's more useful to abandon the old economic debate and think instead of liberalism vs. communitarianism. It's a conflict in Britain... I recommend reading Julian Baggini's essay "Across the great divide" on this.
        I always thought that communitarianism was opposed to individualism and statism, not liberalism. Communitarianism is largely an excuse for bigotry in my experience.
        Only feebs vote.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Agathon
          They are measures designed to stop you from harming other people. An authoritarian measure would be trying to prohibit masturbation or homosexual acts, or something else that doesn't affect others.

          .....

          Libertarians really divide into two camps. The first are interested in protecting the lives of individuals from the interference and negative influence of others. The second group are interested in removing such protections (such as laws against racist behaviour) in order that they be free to indulge their prejudices. The latter are authoritarians.

          .....

          Do you have an argument against this?
          I have an argument against this. You are defining liberty as one set of political priorities and defending any coercive measure that enforces them.

          Eg: Racism is being increasingly redefined to include giving offence against religion, which means that speaking one's mind about religion can be construed as equivalent to racism. Are such laws a defender of the liberty of religious people to live free from the cruel mockery of others, or are they a limitation on free speech?

          If you see a smoking ban as enabling people to live without the tyranny of smoke, then let's have a drinking ban to free people from the tyranny of drunks, and a ban on football to free people from the percieved threat of football violence. Many feminists argue that things from porn to fashion oppress women, so ban them too, in order to liberate women.

          As for freedom against crime - why not shoot all the criminals? From here it's not such a stretch for someone to insist upon measures to free the country/world from their percieved Intenational Jooish Conspiracy.

          First though, ban the communists, who are clearly conspiring to remove all freedoms.

          Don't you see where this is going?

          Comment


          • #35
            You can't be serious?

            The Patriot Act is all about curtailing individual freedoms for the "security of the state". ALL OF IT. That's the entire purpose.

            PLEASE tell us what you think the act is.
            Yes, the point being that there is an external threat to those liberties and that the restrictions in the patriot act are temporary measures during a war.
            Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
            "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
            2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

            Comment


            • #36
              No they aren't. They are measures designed to stop you from harming other people. An authoritarian measure would be trying to prohibit masturbation or homosexual acts, or something else that doesn't affect others.
              If an outcome has a negative health effect, such as smoking, then the same can apply to other unhealthy behaviours. It's the same argument for all of them. I think it's a very authoritarian measure to say that the state should ban unhealthy behaviours to lower the costs associated with public health care. The decision should be to educate people of the dangers that they are risking themselves if they do these behaviours, and go from there.

              When the public health system has to pick up the tab, as it does in Canada, this is not unreasonable.
              A warning is far different from a ban, which is authoritarian.

              You don't have to be for increasing the state to be an authoritarian. Those who want to restrict the state in favour of private power, such as to produce a starkly inegalitarian society, are authoritarians.
              I don't believe that a free society with lower taxation would be inegalitarian. You are putting more money into everyone's hands rather then confiscating it.

              Libertarians really divide into two camps. The first are interested in protecting the lives of individuals from the interference and negative influence of others. The second group are interested in removing such protections (such as laws against racist behaviour) in order that they be free to indulge their prejudices. The latter are authoritarians.
              So where does taxation fall into all of this? I hardly think the desire to reduce the size and scope of the state can be attributed to 'prejudice'. Libertarians consider taxation to be interference and a negative influence into people's lives.

              I think the test needs work if 20 percent of the people aren't considered to be a part of it. Libertarians are a pretty big subsection.
              Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
              "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
              2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

              Comment


              • #37
                WTF Ben?!

                Even its ardent supporters will acknowledge that the Patriot Act is designed to curtain some privacy for security. That's the whole point. Now some think that's ok because of the terrorists and what not, but it is undeniable harmful to privacy.

                Trying to link taxation with privacy is bat**** insane though.
                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Ben's not talking privacy, he's talking freedom. Those are two very, very different things.

                  Personally I think that 'Privacy' is complicated, and cannot be easily broken down like this. Particularly, I think it's not particularly harmful for databases and such to be created with identity information, particularly if financial/etc. data is not disseminated; of course it comes down to do you trust your government, but to some extent one of the functions of a government should be to simplify the identification and verification of citizens.

                  On RWA/LWA/etc.: There are left wing authoritarians by my definition of 'left wing' and 'authoritarian'. I cannot speak to the writer of this article of Agathon's as I don't have that article, and don't care to read it; but I suspect it either defines right wing/left wing and authoritarian/not in a manner not consistent with mine, or the 'test' to determine RWA/LWA/etc. is written in such a way as to gain that result (intentionally or unintentionally). I suspect the former more, but probably both; I'd consider Mao Tse-Tung to be a 'LWA', for example, though it's not hard to define right wing in such a way that he would fit that, also.
                  <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                  I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Even its ardent supporters will acknowledge that the Patriot Act is designed to curtain some privacy for security. That's the whole point. Now some think that's ok because of the terrorists and what not, but it is undeniable harmful to privacy.
                    Terrorists don't really care about your privacy. Privacy comes after you've dealt with them.

                    Trying to link taxation with privacy is bat**** insane though.
                    I link it to freedom. Privacy is an important component of freedom, but freedom is more important. It's only if you are free that you truly have privacy.
                    Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                    "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                    2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      On RWA/LWA/etc.: There are left wing authoritarians by my definition of 'left wing' and 'authoritarian'. I cannot speak to the writer of this article of Agathon's as I don't have that article, and don't care to read it; but I suspect it either defines right wing/left wing and authoritarian/not in a manner not consistent with mine, or the 'test' to determine RWA/LWA/etc. is written in such a way as to gain that result (intentionally or unintentionally). I suspect the former more, but probably both; I'd consider Mao Tse-Tung to be a 'LWA', for example, though it's not hard to define right wing in such a way that he would fit that, also.
                      The general dichotomy is between individuals and the collective. Those who favour the collective over individuals are authoritarian. The left/right distinction is an economic one. Folks on the right believe that market forces make people more free, whereas folks on the left believe that market forces decrease freedom. Those who are on the left who believe that the collective good is more important then the good of an individual are authoritarians, same with those on the right, who believe that the individual good is less important then ensure that society as a whole ought to be preserved. Folks on the right believe that competition improves the overall product, where folks on the left believes that it's collaboration that is most important, and that competition waters down quality in favour of quantity.
                      Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                      "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                      2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
                        Terrorists don't really care about your privacy. Privacy comes after you've dealt with them.
                        My point exactly. To some privacy doesn't matter because you are dealing with terrorists and catching & beating the terrorists is the goal... privacy comes later.

                        I link it to freedom. Privacy is an important component of freedom, but freedom is more important. It's only if you are free that you truly have privacy.
                        If you look at the title... yep the International PRIVACY Rankings. Yeah, it's component of freedom, but we ain't talking about freedom as a whole here.

                        As an aside (well I guess this whole freedom argument is an aside anyway), I'd argue the opposite of your last statement - It's only if you have adequate privacy that you are truely free.
                        “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                        - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          if the US is black on privacy rights, can we please STOP the charade of taking classes on date confidentiality? It takes up so much time, and the classes, including the online ones, are so annoying. Also we wouldnt have to designate a confidentiality officer, or have him review our publications.

                          Also it would ease the structuring of databases and what not, from what I understand.
                          "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            As an aside (well I guess this whole freedom argument is an aside anyway), I'd argue the opposite of your last statement - It's only if you have adequate privacy that you are truely free.
                            Privacy is a subset of freedom, not the other way around. You can be free and choose to give up substantial portions of your privacy. Like a monk in a monastery. You give up most of your privacy, but you can only do so because you are free to make the decisions on your own. Many would argue the same about marriage, that you are surrendering significant personal autonomy in order to maintain a married life, and to reap other benefits.

                            I think you have your whole concept of freedom wrong if you believe you have to have privacy first before any freedom arises.
                            Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                            "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                            2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I always thought that communitarianism was opposed to individualism and statism, not liberalism. Communitarianism is largely an excuse for bigotry in my experience.
                              Yes and no. It's not necessarily opposed to liberalism (read, the rights of the individual per se) but I think the current zeitgeist in Britain's "Radio 2" culture is such that it is. For example, when asked, most people will pay lipservice to such things as the UN Declaration on Human Rights but once you ask more specific questions, for example, the rights of immigrants or deportees, you'll find a lot of opposition. The argument that the UK is a communitarian culture goes along the lines that you shouldn't be given rights unless you're a paid-up member of the community and demonstrated responsibility.

                              It sounds nice on paper but imo it's very dangerous in a pluralist culture since it relies on the dominance of a lower-middle class "red-top" homogeny which, frankly, is basically the hellspawn of Thatcher, ITV and Rupert Murdoch.

                              I think Communitarianism accurately describes the troglodyte and insular tendencies in British society which is why we are perhaps particularly susceptible to the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality and we why are living in an Orwellian nanny state, and will soon be living in a Pontius Pilate society with the complicity of The Daily Mail .
                              "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
                              "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by snoopy369
                                Ben's not talking privacy, he's talking freedom. Those are two very, very different things.
                                Ben should try REAL hard to read and comprehend thread topics.
                                "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                                Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X