Big Brother is watching you: The 2007 International Privacy Ranking

[Whaleboy]

That's an interesting point - what relationship does privacy have to freedom?

[Geronimo]

tweaked for accuracy:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

Privacy has no bearing whatever on our freedom in public places. And of course such freedom admits to limitations. The government is prudently allowed search warrants and the like as allowing murder or rape or other heinous crimes to go uninvestigated just because they weren't committed in public places would be going too far.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That's an interesting point - what relationship does privacy have to freedom?

I'd say privacy protection allows for a division of government enforcement of the law between public settings and private settings.

[RGBVideo]

good god, what an argument...

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

That's retarded, paying taxes doesn't entail heavier monitoring schemes.

Where does the money come to fund the cameras?

True, not all high taxes will lead to greater monitoring, but you can't have heavy monitoring without also having high taxes.

If this were anyone else but BK, I'm sure he'd be trolling.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That's an interesting point - what relationship does privacy have to freedom?

There's a strong relationship with welfare. People are social animals, and the ability to keep certain relationships, interactions and information to yourself or within a close circle of family and friends is essential to living a properly human life.

As for freedom, knowledge is power. Every one of us has information that could be used against us. That's bad enough when we are dealing with the limited capacities of other people, but when we deal with powerful institutions like corporations or the state, the power differential becomes rather more lopsided.

Without the ability to keep certain kinds of information from others unless one so chooses to disclose, a human life is impossible. The cost of this is a somewhat lesser ability to combat crime, but the alternative is worse.

[Henrik]

Where did vietnam go on that map?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


There's a strong relationship with welfare. People are social animals, and the ability to keep certain relationships, interactions and information to yourself or within a close circle of family and friends is essential to living a properly human life.

As for freedom, knowledge is power. Every one of us has information that could be used against us. That's bad enough when we are dealing with the limited capacities of other people, but when we deal with powerful institutions like corporations or the state, the power differential becomes rather more lopsided.

Without the ability to keep certain kinds of information from others unless one so chooses to disclose, a human life is impossible. The cost of this is a somewhat lesser ability to combat crime, but the alternative is worse.

When you say information that could be used against us do you mean we all have evidence that would implicate us in criminal activity or what?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Geronimo

When you say information that could be used against us do you mean we all have evidence that would implicate us in criminal activity or what?

Would you like nudie pics of yourself plastered all over the internet without your consent? Or would you like your medical history made available for everyone? Could you conduct a love affair if everything you said was made available to everyone to read? Would you like it if there was no place in the world where you could go and be alone and not be monitored by other people?

We need to keep some things to ourselves and close friends and family. Can you imagine a recognizably human life without it?

[Arrian]

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

Heh, I just saw this particular absurdity amongst Ben's posts.

No, Ben, it's not. Like Aggie, I've experienced both. I also think there is research that backs this up, because obviously two anecdotes don't a fact make. Not that you'd be swayed by it...

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Oh no, I believe you and Aggie that it's less addictive. No question there. I do believe people can develop both a dependency and a tolerance to marijuana.

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 guess where we disagree is that I see inequality as a natural consequence. Not everyone is the same, and so as long as there are differences there are going to be wage disparities. I don't have a moral objection to other people having more money then me. I don't believe it's because they are better people, just that they have worked harder for longer then me. I feel they deserve to be making more then me, and frankly it's an incentive to be doing better to know that there is more out there.

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

The point being that the good is not that we are no longer annoyed, but that people are better off. You don't need to tell me about the problems with panhandlers, I lived in Vancouver, and they are terrible down there. One of the worst spots of all of north america.

Actually, I don't see the homeless as a problem that needs to be gotten rid of. I really don't see payments to support them as a solution to their underlying problems. I don't care how much it would cost to 'solve the problem of homelessness', it's wrong to take money from other people and give it to the poor without their consent. It's a fact that the societies with the highest rates of taxation have the lowest rates of charitable giving because they believe that is what their taxes are for. So you haven't really accomplished anything through taxation as a means of charity then to rob people of the feeling that comes from helping others.

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.

Yes, there will be freeriders, but the overall benefit from the charity should be far greater then the free rider problem.

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

What if it costs 3.05 to make a pack of smokes? Should it cost the same in downtown toronto as it would out in the sticks?

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.

It would be hard to have it worse then it is. Right now the system is not working for anyone. If we allowed people to buy private insurance and to opt out if they chose not to do so, then that will ease the burden off our medical system, because these people will not be going in to see the doctor, or if they do, they will have to pay for it.

In certain respects, being more free can make us worse off. That is the whole point of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

True, I would be worse off to get in a bad injury without insurance. But I should as a free man be allowed to make that decision for good or for ill.

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

The system as it is isn't working, so we have to find other solutions to the problem.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


Would you like nudie pics of yourself plastered all over the internet without your consent? Or would you like your medical history made available for everyone? Could you conduct a love affair if everything you said was made available to everyone to read? Would you like it if there was no place in the world where you could go and be alone and not be monitored by other people?

We need to keep some things to ourselves and close friends and family. Can you imagine a recognizably human life without it?

This is only an issue because of laws like the Freedom of information act that make all government documents eventually public. With an exception made that stipulated that all criminal investigation data that did not lead to a conviction be destroyed after a period of time this would not be an issue. It is not necessary to have all government documents published with no exceptions.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
No, Ben, it's not. Like Aggie, I've experienced both. I also think there is research that backs this up, ...

Somewhat but not to the unequivical extent you and Agathon seem to believe though:

The question of addiction is especially intriguing. The majority of marijuana users do not develop addiction: they do not experience loss of control; they use when they choose to, in the amounts they choose to, getting the results—in general—that they intend to get. Parents of today certainly recall many acquaintances from college in the 1960s or ’70s, or high school in the ’80s and ’90s, who smoked marijuana without developing dependence or any other long-term negative consequences. But just because addiction doesn’t occur in all users, or even most users, doesn’t mean that addiction doesn’t happen to any user.

http://www.uhs.wisc.edu/display_story.jsp?id=736&cat_id=38