Privacy Rights

[YabYumFun]

The right to privacy is enshrined in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How it is implemented member states of the UN is of course up for discussion, as is the balance between individual rights and the collective good with regards to the degree the state or other organised entites has the right to interfere with one's privacy. In terms of living life, we should assume little privacy, in a sense this places us on the path towards behaving impeccabbly within every moment.

Y.

 

[patient1]

Welcome to 1984

 

[riff]

The right to individual privacy will be one of the top 2 or 3 ethical issues of this new century.

I believe in a right to privacy. Sometimes I crave anonymity.

 

[Weevil]

Re: This could prove interesting

How, exactly, would you pronounce them instead?

Without the hard a on the end. Touche should rhyme with Smoosh and Forte should rhyme with port.

 

[lavender]

Re: Re: This could prove interesting

 

[Weevil]

Re: Re: Re: This could prove interesting

You are wrong about Forte, especially as a music term.

Perhaps, but I'm not wrong in terms of it meaning particular niche.

Trust me, I had a french teacher who got real uppity about things like this.

 

[Weevil]

Can I be the dopey outsider for five minutes? And maybe, this should have its own thread but why is the constitution and what it gives the government the right to do and so forth held in such untouchable regard?

I mean, it was the way a bunch of real smart guys thought running a country would work the best and most justly, in the 18th century.

So, 200 years from then, different philosophies(From all forms of collectivism to complete and total liberalism) pop up and if the collected people of the USA say "Hey, fuck this free speech garbage I only want to hear nice people saying nice things" then why not let them. Theories grow and change, political systems die out and Canada can't play international hockey to save our life.

 

[alltherage]

In my view the right to privacy is implied in the constitution. Without a privacy right the ennumerated rights fall to meaninglessness. I have the right not to incriminate myself but without a privacy right the government might well build a file on me that makes my right against self incrimination meaningless. I am free to pursue the religion of my choice and I owe no explaination to any governmental agency about how I practice my religion. If I want to worship a giant dildo it is my right. The constitution was written to protect individual rights and to define and limit the power of government. How can I pursue happiness if government seeks to limit my right to think, or to enjoy the use of my body. I tend to think that the worst laws our representatives make are laws restricting freedoms. Drug laws, starting with the prohibition of alcohol, are the best examples. I am a member of a 12 step program. I have many friends in recovery, most have some criminal record, yet none are truely criminal in nature. I would love to see the government take a more passive role with this problem. Education and treatment would seem to be the way to go. Unfortunately, when they come to this conclusion, you can bet that somewhere there will be a record of those who sought out help. Privacy, is fundemental to this nations success, and is one of the first rights we loose in reactionary times. Beware the true believer, and the ardent patriot who knows whats good for you.

 

[Mensa]

Re: Re: This could prove interesting

Without the hard a on the end. Touche should rhyme with Smoosh and Forte should rhyme with port.

If your French teacher taught you that touche rhymes with smoosh and that forte rhymes with port, then that explains the dramatic decline in the Canadian educational system. No wonder Mike Harris declared it in an emergency state.

Touche has an accent aigu over the final "e" . A grammatical imperative that must be addressed. Forte comes from the Latin, meaning that every letter in the word must be pronounced. Slovenly mispronunciation of words has become epidemic of late.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Does anyone else wonder if UncleBill cuts and pastes his material?

Central government and privacy can go hand in hand. There are things we require of a government, protection, security, and facilitation of livelihood with things like international trade regulation, highways, education systems, public parks, errata of that nature.

We have government in three stages; federal, state, and local. The problem of privacy stems from how much power these governments have.

Legislation aimed at sexuality, such as no same sex marriages, obscenity laws, and censorship are all moral values of one segment imposing these values as law.

It's not the government's job to legislate morality, however we are a strongly religious country so these religious morals are legsilated.

When sex and morality mix in a legislative environment, then you have a violation of privacy. After all the bible says sodomy is bad. Therefore laws were made that sodomy is against the law. This is total invasion of privacy.

However, some invasion of privacy is necessary and so is some morality. Otherwise persons engaged in pedophilia and rape are able to use the same arguments to make their activities legal.

 

[alltherage]

Does anyone else wonder if UncleBill cuts and pastes his material?

Central government and privacy can go hand in hand. There are things we require of a government, protection, security, and facilitation of livelihood with things like international trade regulation, highways, education systems, public parks, errata of that nature.

We have government in three stages; federal, state, and local. The problem of privacy stems from how much power these governments have.

Legislation aimed at sexuality, such as no same sex marriages, obscenity laws, and censorship are all moral values of one segment imposing these values as law.

It's not the government's job to legislate morality, however we are a strongly religious country so these religious morals are legsilated.

When sex and morality mix in a legislative environment, then you have a violation of privacy. After all the bible says sodomy is bad. Therefore laws were made that sodomy is against the law. This is total invasion of privacy.

However, some invasion of privacy is necessary and so is some morality. Otherwise persons engaged in pedophilia and rape are able to use the same arguments to make their activities legal.

In my view the right to privacy ends at about the same point as my freedom of speech. I cannot go into a crowded theater and yell fire when there is none and expect my right of free speech to protect me from the consequences of such an act. My right to privacy ends when to protect it means that harm I am causing others cannot be stopped. Pedophiles and rapists are abhorant to any society and there criminal activities should never be protected.

 

[NoRegrets]

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is not very explicit but the consitiution says nothing about sex or drugs. If I am not hurting anyone, what business is it of any government?

 

[Weevil]

Re: Re: Re: This could prove interesting

Touche has an accent aigu over the final "e" . A grammatical imperative that must be addressed. Forte comes from the Latin, meaning that every letter in the word must be pronounced. Slovenly mispronunciation of words has become epidemic of late.

Hmm. Damn catholic schools. I'm not too sure on this whole body of christ thing either. I mean, it's just a freakin' cracker.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Oliver Clozoff
I don't have the time or the energy to rebut you, Bill (and from what I've read from you, I seriously doubt you'd budge an inch if even if I did - your arguments for libertarianism take on an evangelical fervor), so I'll just say that I profoundly disagree with you on a number of points (and how you seem to arrive at them) and leave it at that.

All it takes to change my mind is a reasoned, consistent, non-contradictory presentation of the errors in my reasoning or premises. And my arguments are based in my Objectivist philosophy. The Libertarian political affiliation is an outgrowth of the philosophy, not vice versa.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
Does anyone else wonder if UncleBill cuts and pastes his material? . . .

All you need do now is identify a source now that you've advanced the accusation. Or is the accusation sufficient?

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
. . . It's not the government's job to legislate morality, however we are a strongly religious country so these religious morals are legsilated. . .

Can you clarify what you mean by we are a strongly religious country? Who is we? How are we strongly religious? And how does that declaration, even if true, justify forcing on one segment of society the beliefs of another segment? Does this not present a fundamental conflict with the principles of freedom and individual rights? Does it not cross the line between separation of church and state when religious morals are legislated? And if we are to use religion as the source of legislative morality, whose religion shall we use? I vote for mine since it's the most reasoned.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
. . . However, some invasion of privacy is necessary and so is some morality. Otherwise persons engaged in pedophilia and rape are able to use the same arguments to make their activities legal.

No invasion of privacy is necessary. There is no such thing as a right to perpetrate a crime. The concept of privacy is not a legitimate means of attempting to conceal a crime and the specific acts you list are crimes.

 

[patient1]

Can I be the dopey outsider for five minutes? And maybe, this should have its own thread but why is the constitution and what it gives the government the right to do and so forth held in such untouchable regard?

I mean, it was the way a bunch of real smart guys thought running a country would work the best and most justly, in the 18th century.

So, 200 years from then, different philosophies(From all forms of collectivism to complete and total liberalism) pop up and if the collected people of the USA say "Hey, fuck this free speech garbage I only want to hear nice people saying nice things" then why not let them. Theories grow and change, political systems die out and Canada can't play international hockey to save our life.

You're right. This should have it's own thread. If you want to discuss this, don't reply to this here,just start a new thread.

Well sir, for the benefit of our international bulletin board , I'll give a brief overview of why the U.S.A. Constitution & it's Amendmendts ( the first 10 are known as the Bill of Rights [& if you're wondering, it wasn't named for Lit's own Uncle Bill] ) are such a big deal to us. In no particular order:

Every person who holds a federal office, or joins the military, or becomes a citizen affirms their allegience to it, to preserve, protect ,& defend it. The Constitution, not the nation, president or gov.There's something similar in a passport application, in many federal jobs , either as direct employees or as employees of a contractor if it requires a security clearence.

The Constitution is the highest law. Any law in conflict with it may be struck down. Any controversial law will be challenged. It's increasingly more important for what it says the gov. never had a right to do,
than for what it says it does. The bigger the country becomes, the easier it is to trample individual rights, unless we have this kind of protection.

It's what unites many diverse peoples as equals.

It begins with the words "We The People.." that's where the authority of the government comes from. The constitution was designed to grow & change with the nation by the amendment process.It doesn't get replaced as often as a political party. If it needs to be changed, it can be. If it's ignored, the authority of the gov. & rights of the people become meaningless.