Big Brother is watching you: The 2007 International Privacy Ranking

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

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

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not making any claims about the content of any ideology. Libertarianism just is what it is. What I'm talking about is the mindset of the people who follow it, which may be different even if people support the same ideology.

My point was that I've tended to meet two sorts of people who support Libertarianism. One sort who support it out of some sense of idealism, and another who support it for more cynical reasons (they want to shift power to the private sector). The first are anti-authoritarian and tend towards anarchism. The second are authoritarian and tend towards conservatism.

If it makes you feel any better, there are also authoritarian and anti-authoritarian communists. The research shows that the latter are pretty rare (and so are the former).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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.

Marijuana isn't particularly unhealthy. I should know, I've smoked enough of it in my time (although I haven't touched it in years). People smoke a lot less marijuana than cigarettes.

You don't have to ban either marijuana or cigarettes if you can charge people for the burden they put on the health system via a tax. The difference with cigarettes is that they are highly addictive at the same time as being unhealthy. Addiction isn't really a choice. People who become heroin addicts have largely removed their ability to decide what to do about it (a friend of mine is an ex addict, and she will be on methadone for the rest of her life).

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.

That's not why we pay tax. Tax isn't about inequality, but about correcting for market failures. Some things, especially those prone to externalities, don't work if we leave them to the market. So we have to pay for them some other way, and that's just tax.

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.

Libertarians don't really understand how markets work. If they really understood how they work (how the price setting mechanism works), then they would understand why markets fail. A collective action problem is simply a market in reverse, where the rational choices of individuals make everyone worse off rather than better off, and most market failures are the result of collective action problems.

You can see that a market is really a series of collective action problems, since each person wants to hold out for the highest price, but others will keep undercutting them until the market clearing price is reached. That sucks for each of us individually, but it is a collective boon, since resources will be allocated efficiently (thats why cartels attempt to stop companies undercutting each other's prices).

Market failures work the same way, but the result is that everyone ends up worse off.

The Libertarian "solution" will simply amplify the collective action problems to an unbearable degree.

To be fair, a lot on the left don't understand that taxation has little to do with redistribution either. The proof of this is that if everyone had exactly the same income, we would still need a tax system to correct for market failures.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369

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.

He would agree with you. The point is that there is almost no-one who is psychologically like Mao left in contemporary Canada or the US.

A left wing authoritarian is someone who submits to a revolutionary power. Altemeyer met people like this during the 60s (he specifically mentions radical Maoists), but those people are all gone, and in any case they were heavily outnumbered by the RWAs.

RWAs are people who submit to the established authorities. So a Soviet citizen who was mentally subservient to Stalin would be an RWA, even though the Soviet Union could be described as "left wing".

But the established authorities in our societies are not left wing in the political sense, since we live in capitalist countries. Hence, a putative LWA would have to submit to revolutionary authority, like the members of the Baader Meinhof Gang did.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think you have your whole concept of freedom wrong if you believe you have to have privacy first before any freedom arises.

How can you possibly have freedom if the government can track your every move and knows everything about you? Do you trust the government to not abuse that knowledge and information? And if so... why?

[Agathon]

I guess I should do this, since I brought it up.

1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.

The opposite is true in my experience. The "conventional wisdom" is usually horse****.

2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.

How absurd.

3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.

No sane country needs a leader or central authority figure. I can't even see the rationale for having a Prime Minister.

4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.

Pretty much, but everyone is pretty ****ed up and immoral. Homos are no better.

5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds.

You'd get a lot further if you listened to the weirdos.

6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.

Atheists are more virtuous than churchgoers.

7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.

What crisis?

8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.

Well, there's nothing morally wrong with them. Aesthetically, it's a different story, given some of the people who attend them.

9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.

Check

10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.

Our country will be destroyed some day if we do not engage in the perversions eating away at our moral fibre and traditional beliefs. I still think that a roll in the hay with Mariah Carey would make you a much happier man, Ben.

11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.

Yes and no. Yes, people should have their own, but, no, it doesn't matter whether it is the same as or different from everyone else's.

12. The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.

Whether or not they are old makes no difference.

13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.

I don't think you have to admire them, but you would be strange if you didn't.

14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.

What our country really needs is a strong, determined public who will crush anyone who attempts to be a strong determined leader.

15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”

And some of the worst, like those Mormon perverts in BC.

16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.

Who cares?

17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.

They're called fundamentalist Christians.

18. A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.

Yep.

19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.

Ugh.

20. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.

Yes and no. There is no ONE right way to live, but there are many ways in which you ought not to live. People don't have to create their own way to live if they don't want to.

21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.

Feminists yes, homosexuals sort of. Simply being gay isn't an achievement. Being openly gay is.

22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s traditional place in society.

They're called conservatives, and their place in society is to stay out of politics.


You come out as pretty authoritarian Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

How can you possibly have freedom if the government can track your every move and knows everything about you? Do you trust the government to not abuse that knowledge and information? And if so... why?

How can you have any reasonable expectation of 'privacy', if you are a slave?

I gave two examples where people voluntarily surrender privacy in exchange for other benefits. Freedom has to come first before you can have any expectation of privacy. It doesn't work the other way that you can have privacy without freedom, but you can have freedom without privacy, provided that the agreement is voluntary.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I gave two examples where people voluntarily surrender privacy in exchange for other benefits.

You mean they had the right to privacy and they chose to give it up. The privacy wasn't violated by the government in either of those examples, was it?

It doesn't work the other way that you can have privacy without freedom

Privacy allows for freedom. When the government can't tell what you are doing, you have the opportunity to easily oppose it and do whatever you will.

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't have to ban either marijuana or cigarettes if you can charge people for the burden they put on the health system via a tax

Hence the exorbitant taxes on cigarettes. I'm not sure why further regulations are necessary. People are paying considerable taxes just for smoking, and Marijuana is addictive too.

That's not why we pay tax. Tax isn't about inequality, but about correcting for market failures. Some things, especially those prone to externalities, don't work if we leave them to the market. So we have to pay for them some other way, and that's just tax.

So why taxes on say income and not on consumer products to fund these programs which the market doesn't handle very well? I would argue things like Income taxes are very much motivated to redistribute wealth.

Libertarians don't really understand how markets work. If they really understood how they work (how the price setting mechanism works), then they would understand why markets fail.

Yes, there are certain things that the market does not do very well, among them public utilities. The barrier of entry is so high, and competition isn't exactly productive to laying down pipes. The question is how will these things be paid for and how many of them are truly necessary.

You can see that a market is really a series of collective action problems, since each person wants to hold out for the highest price, but others will keep undercutting them until the market clearing price is reached. That sucks for each of us individually, but it is a collective boon, since resources will be allocated efficiently (thats why cartels attempt to stop companies undercutting each other's prices).

Yes, and this is a problem in the long run as it negates the benefits of competition. Yes, the market doesn't do everything well, but most things do work well in a market based system. The problem with price settings is that you distort the true cost of the item. That's the biggest advantage of the market is that the prices of items will remain close to their true value over time.

To be fair, a lot on the left don't understand that taxation has little to do with redistribution either. The proof of this is that if everyone had exactly the same income, we would still need a tax system to correct for market failures.

Then why income taxes? Why not just add a tariff on all of our purchases if taxes are not about wealth redistribution?

[Ben Kenobi]

I agree with you Imran which is why it is important for the provisions of the patriot act to be temporary. If we have an external threat to our liberty, it is necessary to limit privacy until that threat has been dealt with.

In your example, I would think that any state which has abolished privacy has also abolished liberty in doing so without the consent of the participants.

[Ben Kenobi]

Our country will be destroyed some day if we do not engage in the perversions eating away at our moral fibre and traditional beliefs. I still think that a roll in the hay with Mariah Carey would make you a much happier man, Ben.

For a day perhaps, which is my point. I'd much rather be happily married then a one shot deal.

We see eye to eye on this that these things need to be engaged, not smashed. Really, there are some questions that we differ, and yes I am more authoritarian then you, but if you look at someone like Albert Speer, I would say I'm closer to you then Speer.

I may believe there is only one 'best' way to live your life, but I also believe that no one should walk a path not of their own choosing. People who choose different paths should be free to tell my that the whole notion of objective truth is hooey, and more power to them. The same freedom that permits them to make mistakes is the same freedom that we have to truly love and care for one another.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Hence the exorbitant taxes on cigarettes. I'm not sure why further regulations are necessary. People are paying considerable taxes just for smoking

.

Yes, but while they are paying the state for the excess health care they receive, they aren't paying the other people who have to breathe in their smoke in public.

and Marijuana is addictive too.

As someone who has given up both, this is pure BS.

So why taxes on say income and not on consumer products to fund these programs which the market doesn't handle very well? I would argue things like Income taxes are very much motivated to redistribute wealth.

Because taxing consumer products rather than income would lead to inequalities that would generate worse inefficiencies.

You do realize that welfare is not about being nice, but about making people pay the cost of a society that they can actually bear living in, don't you? It's basically money that we pay to stop poor people annoying us or making us feel bad.

Yes, there are certain things that the market does not do very well, among them public utilities. The barrier of entry is so high, and competition isn't exactly productive to laying down pipes. The question is how will these things be paid for and how many of them are truly necessary.

A lot. Collective action problems are everywhere. Once you start looking, they pile up in no time at all.

Yes, and this is a problem in the long run as it negates the benefits of competition. Yes, the market doesn't do everything well, but most things do work well in a market based system. The problem with price settings is that you distort the true cost of the item. That's the biggest advantage of the market is that the prices of items will remain close to their true value over time.

Except that we can never do this with things that suffer from endemic market failure, so we just have to do the best we can. Libertarians are dumb precisely because their solution to market failure is to invoke the market.

Then why income taxes? Why not just add a tariff on all of our purchases if taxes are not about wealth redistribution?

Because they may be about wealth redistribution in a different sense. Your health premiums if you have private insurance are redistributed to people who get sick, but people don't complain about that. A lot of your taxes are redistributed in exactly the same way, because a lot of your tax is simply a form of insurance. In some cases there is direct redistribution, but that is mostly, as I said, paying off poor people so that they are less of a nuisance.

[Ben Kenobi]

As someone who has given up both, this is pure BS.

So you found smoking harder. Just because smoking is more addictive doesn't mean that marijuana is not addictive.

Because taxing consumer products rather than income would lead to inequalities that would generate worse inefficiencies.

So IOW taxes are about redistributing wealth. Thanks Aggie. I thought you said inequalities were irrelevant.

You do realize that welfare is not about being nice, but about making people pay the cost of a society that they can actually bear living in, don't you? It's basically money that we pay to stop poor people annoying us or making us feel bad.

I think we should feel bad. If welfare kept people from annoying us then we'd have no pandhalders. I hardly think the measure of a successful social program is to keep people from annoying me on the street.

Except that we can never do this with things that suffer from endemic market failure, so we just have to do the best we can. Libertarians are dumb precisely because their solution to market failure is to invoke the market.

If I set the price for a pack of smokes at 3.00 by fiat of Ben Kenobi, what would happen?

Because they may be about wealth redistribution in a different sense. Your health premiums if you have private insurance are redistributed to people who get sick, but people don't complain about that. A lot of your taxes are redistributed in exactly the same way, because a lot of your tax is simply a form of insurance. In some cases there is direct redistribution, but that is mostly, as I said, paying off poor people so that they are less of a nuisance.

Actually, I'd much rather be allowed to opt out. The consequence being that if I do end up needing it then I would be worse off, but that's the consequence of freedom.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So IOW taxes are about redistributing wealth.

Well duh. But only a select few think this is a bad thing. Market failures create a group of 'losers'. Taxes help alleviate things for the losers of the game. And like Aggie said make a society that people can bear living in. And lots of people realize that by a flick of the switch that they can be one of the losers as well. Ask those affected by Hurricane Katrina (and yes, disaster relief taxes are a very obvious redistribution of wealth to help those who have been affected).

If you didn't distribute some wealth, you'd have revolution. Simple as that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So you found smoking harder. Just because smoking is more addictive doesn't mean that marijuana is not addictive.

Marijuana isn't addictive at all. You don't even think about giving it up. Nothing happens. Believe me, giving up smoking is awful.

So IOW taxes are about redistributing wealth. Thanks Aggie. I thought you said inequalities were irrelevant.

There's a difference between objecting to inequality per se, and objecting to inequality because it causes certain inefficiencies. One is a moral objection and the other an economic objection.

I think we should feel bad. If welfare kept people from annoying us then we'd have no pandhalders. I hardly think the measure of a successful social program is to keep people from annoying me on the street.

I have never met a panhandler in New Zealand. Not one. Ever. That's because we have a more generous welfare system.

And you are wrong. Panhandlers bother most people, as do the homeless (especially during winter). You can't really go downtown in a lot of cities without being assaulted by the constant spectacle of human misery, or being harassed by drunks, drug addicts and the mentally ill. This sharply reduces the quality of the environment. If you could get rid of the problem for a very small fee, then you'd do it. Except that, like most charity, there is a collective action problem. If payment is voluntary, then people will free ride, because they will benefit from the charity of others toward the homeless, and so hardly anyone will pay and the problem will remain. The rational thing to do is compel payment, so the problem is solved and people are happier. Individually, it doesn't cost us very much to do something about homelessness.

If I set the price for a pack of smokes at 3.00 by fiat of Ben Kenobi, what would happen?

People would buy more smokes. What's your point?

Actually, I'd much rather be allowed to opt out. The consequence being that if I do end up needing it then I would be worse off, but that's the consequence of freedom.

You don't get it. If people are allowed to opt out, then we will end up with a worse overall outcome for everyone. That's irrational.

You won't really understand why modern society is the way it is until you understand that the freedom to free ride is not something we should be promoting. As Hobbes pointed out, it is often in our interest to be the subjects of limited coercion, as long as everyone else is as well. In certain respects, being more free can make us worse off. That is the whole point of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

When Libertarians argue for maximum freedom, they are essentially arguing for behaviour that is individually in one's interest, but collectively destructive. Since we are members of society, we will all suffer.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Asher


Ben should try REAL hard to read and comprehend thread topics.

Before Ben posted Aggy posted this:

And yet people in Britain and the United States continue to insist that they are free countries.

So the thread had already strayed from focusing purely on privacy and was now discussing the broader issue of which countries are more "free" over all.