pri•va•cy
n.
1. The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.
2. The state of being concealed; secrecy.
- Dictionary.Com
“[privacy] is a vacuous concept that is a convenient lie and always has been.” – John Galt
or
“…it is a logical fallacy” – John Galt
Your proof, John, was this blinding rhetoric:
“Just because it's easier to get the information now than it was before means nothing. It just means it's easier, it doesn't mean that at some point in the past you had privacy and you've lost it.”
That is very entertaining to read, Dictionary.com disagrees with you as does Merriam-Webster and every other dictionary I consulted. In fact, these tomes of knowledge unanimously agreed that privacy was a noun. So what is a noun? No before I have to deal with people such as you declaring that a noun is also an ambiguously labeled “logical fallacy”, I’ll consult the dictionary again. A noun is defined as a person, place or thing. Allow me to hold your hand and guide you through this critical thinking exercise.
Privacy= Noun
Noun = Person, Place, or Thing
Privacy ≠ Person
Privacy ≠ Place
….sooooo that means Privacy must be a
THING!
(Privacy = Thing)
You may believe I’m simply insulting you but since I’ve apparently spoken so densely that you miss easy inferences time and again I’m simply not taking chances - you raging twit.
…on to other mistakes:
You have quoted Benjamin Franklin as saying,
“Live your life as if you lived in a glass house.”
After consulting many different sources on Benjamin Franklin, I was unable to find any that attributed the quote to that eccentric founding father. Can you produce a source? I did find some of his other quotes at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benjamin_franklin.html, which I thought better illuminated his perspective on government and liberty.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
“The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”
Doesn’t sound like a man who would side with you in pronouncing privacy a “logical fallacy.”
Now let’s move to the meat of the argument.
You asked me to,
“Demonstrate with direct quotes from your original post and how the two relate”
Since I only made the declaration of there being a parallel between a privacy and equal opportunity principle without expounding upon the plank of the argument, you know this cannot be done. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and attempted to save myself the time having to explain the parallel between the two thinking you were quick enough to catch the drift. Perhaps you are and you simply want to be a pain in the ass, but now I have to dictate to you as if you were a child upon seeing your post. The most aggravating element of your post is your ignorant insistence in declaring privacy moot – a preface to most fascist (and today, neocon) arguments that if that is true, we in society should be forced to live without it. This is an insulting and degrading argument against humanist ideals and should not be tolerated.
The parallel between equal opportunity and privacy is that both have historically been promoted, defended, expected by the American people, and articulated in our law. You may have heard the terms expectation of privacy; a belief in the existence of freedom from unwanted esp. governmental intrusion in some thing or place, invasion of privacy; the tort of unjustifiably intruding upon another's right to privacy by appropriating his or her name or likeness, by unreasonably interfering with his or her seclusion, by publicizing information about his or her private affairs that a reasonable person would find objectionable and in which there is no legitimate public interest, or by publicizing information that unreasonably places him or her in a false light, or even right of privacy; the right of a person to be free from intrusion into or publicity concerning matters of a personal nature called also right to privacy.
With all of these terms referring to privacy, one would expect there to be plenty of laws reflecting government’s role in protecting our right to privacy, addressing our expectation of privacy, and protecting us against invasion of privacy; the tort of unjustifiably intruding upon another's right to privacy by appropriating his or her name or likeness, by unreasonably interfering with his or her seclusion, by publicizing information about his or her private affairs that a reasonable person would find objectionable and in which there is no legitimate public interest, or by publicizing information that unreasonably places him or her in a false light.
Guess what? In America, we have a rich set of laws passed and judicial precedents set that protect privacy, that logical fallacy, that vacuous concept that is a convenient lie you so damnably decry. Allow me to introduce the Privacy Act of 1974.
http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm
This act was instituted in reaction to public concerns about governmental data and record keeping as we slowly moved to keeping public records in electronic databases. If you observe sec. (b) it neatly sums up the intent of the bill:
(b) Conditions of disclosure
No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be-
..and it goes on to articulate what conditions would be acceptable / appropriate.
You’ve stated that our founding fathers did not observe there being privacy but that is not what is reflected within the Bill of Rights they authored.
Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights is the best example of the founding fathers’ wise implementation of guarding citizens’ right to privacy:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Merriam-Webster commented upon this by saying:
a penumbral right of privacy has been held to be encompassed in the Bill of Rights, providing protection from unwarranted governmental intrusion into areas such as marriage and contraception. A person's right of privacy may be overcome by a showing that it is outweighed by a compelling state interest…
and…
In order to successfully challenge a search or seizure as a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must show that he or she had manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the area of the search or the object seized and that the expectation is one that society is willing to recognize as reasonable or legitimate.
I could go on and on providing example after example showing how our laws reflect citizen need and expectation for privacy. Instead of using up more of my time, I’ll simply encourage you to visit Google with the key word “privacy”. Duh, but maybe you are still becoming familiar with the internet? Perhaps I’ve misjudged you and you’ve never had privacy as well and that is why you argue so vociferously against it’s existence? Have you never used a restroom by yourself? Have you never used a public restroom and had an expectation of privacy or a zone of privacy? Has someone ever intruded upon you while utilizing a restroom stall and invaded your privacy? If none of these things have happened to you then I can certainly understand why you so ignorantly might argue against this “convenient lie” – privacy.
I don’t expect a response, Mr. Galt, but a simple “you’re right” would be nice.