Comment Re:Does freedom imply privacy? (Score 1) 324
1. Freedom is your right to act as you choose so long as your actions do not harm others
No, Freedom is your right to act as you choose, without retaliation. Other people's freedom is their right not to be harmed in certain ways by your actions.
You might argue that lack of privacy can limit choices by the threat of embarrassment, but freedom does not preclude embarrassing actions from your choice set. In other words, freedom does not require your choices to be easy and embarrassment-free, just possible. This is not to say that privacy isn't a right worth fighting for. But I don't think we should use the right to freedom to justify the right to privacy.
Go live in a dictatorship for a while, and you will realize that while you might be "free" to do something, that doesn't mean that the government won't haul your ass in jail (or execute you) the next day if they found out about it. Much like in America you're "free" to break the speed limit, fuck a cow, copy music, smoke pot, or shoot off fireworks so long as the government doesn't find out you did it. If there is significant chance that your actions will be retaliated against, you're not really free to do them, even if you are physically capable to do so. It is for this reason that freedom requires privacy; if people take offense at your actions and retaliate, you are not really free to do them. You could argue that indifference on the part of everyone could substitute for privacy, but that will never happen. Inasmuch as people don't retaliate for things they don't know, privacy guarantees freedom.
Unfortunately, the sheeple won't realize that if you don't do anything wrong, you still might have something to hide (because illegal things aren't always wrong, and embarrassing things aren't always wrong), especially if the government should ever turn against its people.
No, Freedom is your right to act as you choose, without retaliation. Other people's freedom is their right not to be harmed in certain ways by your actions.
You might argue that lack of privacy can limit choices by the threat of embarrassment, but freedom does not preclude embarrassing actions from your choice set. In other words, freedom does not require your choices to be easy and embarrassment-free, just possible. This is not to say that privacy isn't a right worth fighting for. But I don't think we should use the right to freedom to justify the right to privacy.
Go live in a dictatorship for a while, and you will realize that while you might be "free" to do something, that doesn't mean that the government won't haul your ass in jail (or execute you) the next day if they found out about it. Much like in America you're "free" to break the speed limit, fuck a cow, copy music, smoke pot, or shoot off fireworks so long as the government doesn't find out you did it. If there is significant chance that your actions will be retaliated against, you're not really free to do them, even if you are physically capable to do so. It is for this reason that freedom requires privacy; if people take offense at your actions and retaliate, you are not really free to do them. You could argue that indifference on the part of everyone could substitute for privacy, but that will never happen. Inasmuch as people don't retaliate for things they don't know, privacy guarantees freedom.
Unfortunately, the sheeple won't realize that if you don't do anything wrong, you still might have something to hide (because illegal things aren't always wrong, and embarrassing things aren't always wrong), especially if the government should ever turn against its people.
