Right to Privacy

[onlyrp]

The Lawrence v Texas position was strictly federalism and jurisdiction; nothing surrounding natural rights.

Ron's position is clearly that it is immoral for government to encroach on your privacy. Your privacy is secured in your property.

I understand that Lawrence v Texas was a legal question, not a moral one.

So then, Ron's position on the moral question isn't even applicable. And did I misunderstand or misrepresent him when he said that there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your right to privacy, and States have a legal right to ban sodomy, undermine privacy, perfectly legally?

 

[bolil]

what's an example of something you have "right to" , rather than just "right to defend"?

We all have a right to liberty, that is but a statement... To preserve the right we must defend it.

Having the right to defend something seems to imply a right to possess that thing. However, not exercising your right to defend the thing will often result in your losing the thing. Ideologically speaking rights exist- such as a right to privacy; pragmatically speaking defense of preserves all rights.

I have a right to privacy on my property. I do not build a fence on my property. I use a transparent medium to insulate and side my abode. My neighbor, through no malice or design, can invade my privacy simply by glancing at my house. It is my actions that led to this invasion. While I have the right to privacy, my actions forfeited that right much to my own and my neighbors chagrin. Had I taken reasonable measures to preserve my privacy - such as building a fence and using orthodox mediums for insulation and siding then my neighbor would have to have the intent to invade my privacy thereby violating my right that I had taken reasonable measure to protect.

Does this make sense? I hope so.

 

[onlyrp]

We all have a right to liberty, that is but a statement... To preserve the right we must defend it.

Having the right to defend something seems to imply a right to possess that thing. However, not exercising your right to defend the thing will often result in your losing the thing. Ideologically speaking rights exist- such as a right to privacy; pragmatically speaking defense of preserves all rights.

I have a right to privacy on my property. I do not build a fence on my property. I use a transparent medium to insulate and side my abode. My neighbor, through no malice or design, can invade my privacy simply by glancing at my house. It is my actions that led to this invasion. While I have the right to privacy, my actions forfeited that right much to my own and my neighbors chagrin. Had I taken reasonable measures to preserve my privacy - such as building a fence and using orthodox mediums for insulation and siding then my neighbor would have to have the intent to invade my privacy thereby violating my right that I had taken reasonable measure to protect.

Does this make sense? I hope so.

So you didn't give me ONE example of something you have right to (and not just right to defend). Or is "liberty" your one example?

I understand having a right to something automatically means you have a right to defend it. The reason I ask this is, you can literally say you have no right to anything, just a right to defend, property, privacy, liberty, life, reputation, ...etc. Am I right?

 

[bolil]

Liberty is the only example required, as it necessarily precedes the others, and in the same vein as Ron Paul I do not see how life can be disconnected from liberty.

Besides the right to self-govern, that is to say the right to do with my own body what I will, I do not see any other "rights" granted by virtue of being human our other "rights" are attained, as they are proven only, through action. Do I have a right to property? Not until I attain some, barriers to the acquisition of property can be considered an infringement of that right. Do I have a right to privacy? Not unless I take measures to preserve it. Education? not unless I pursue it. et al.

Rights, in this way, are like muscles. Inherently weak, but with exercise can be made hard as rock. Liberty is the brain that allows us to exercise, and thereby realize, our other "rights".

 

[AFPVet]

Liberty is the only example required, as it necessarily precedes the others, and in the same vein as Ron Paul I do not see how life can be disconnected from liberty.

Besides the right to self-govern, that is to say the right to do with my own body what I will, I do not see any other "rights" granted by virtue of being human our other "rights" are attained, as they are proven only, through action. Do I have a right to property? Not until I attain some, barriers to the acquisition of property can be considered an infringement of that right. Do I have a right to privacy? Not unless I take measures to preserve it. Education? not unless I pursue it. et al.

Rights, in this way, are like muscles. Inherently weak, but with exercise can be made hard as rock. Liberty is the brain that allows us to exercise, and thereby realize, our other "rights".

Well said + rep.

 

[onlyrp]

Liberty is the only example required, as it necessarily precedes the others, and in the same vein as Ron Paul I do not see how life can be disconnected from liberty.

Now explain to me , what does "have a right to liberty" mean, if it doesn't mean just "have a right to defend liberty"? Does it mean you have an entitlement to the result?

Also, what does "have a right to self govern" mean, in addition to simply "have a right to defend self governance"? Until you can show how they are different, it's pointless to say "you don't have a right to A, just a right to defend A"

 

[bolil]

Errr....hmmmm? Read my post the entire way through please thanks.

 

[onlyrp]

Errr....hmmmm? Read my post the entire way through please thanks.

let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that liberty is a right you have without any requirement of pursuit, all others, you only have a right to after you've pursued it?

 

[Inny Binny]

The right to privacy doesn't exist per se, but it does exist as far as the right to private property exists. No-one has a right to barge into your property so in that sense you can protect your privacy. However if you're having fun on the kitchen table and you forget to shut the blinds, you don't have a right not to be taped. So the solution is to shut the blinds.

 

[onlyrp]

The right to privacy doesn't exist per se, but it does exist as far as the right to private property exists. No-one has a right to barge into your property so in that sense you can protect your privacy. However if you're having fun on the kitchen table and you forget to shut the blinds, you don't have a right not to be taped. So the solution is to shut the blinds.

does right to private property exist per se? or just a right to defend private property?

 

[Inny Binny]

The right to defend private property comes from the right to private property. If we didn't have the latter right, we wouldn't be able to use force to protect it.

 

[onlyrp]

The right to defend private property comes from the right to private property. If we didn't have the latter right, we wouldn't be able to use force to protect it.

can't you just replace the word private property with privacy?

 

[bolil]

You dont have a right to private property. Ill let Murray Rothbard answer this for me: "A "right," philosophically, must be something embedded in the nature of man and reality, something that can be preserved and maintained at any tune and in any age. The "right" of self-ownership, of defending one's life and property, is clearly that sort of right... Such a right is independent of time or place"- For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

You have a right to defend your property, inherently, but don't have a "right" to property. To say that you have a right to property implies that certain people are created less equal than others, speaking in terms of rights, as they have no property. They have the potential, or the right, to pursue and attain property, given, but this is not the same as having a "right" to property. Why is this so hard to understand?

You have a right to defend your privacy, inherently, but don't have a "right" to privacy as a "right" is something that CANNOT be forsaken. If I choose to I can forsake my privacy. Even my deepest darkest secrets can be revealed if I choose to. Therefore it is not a right. Liberty, however, cannot be abandoned because it is a NATURAL RIGHT. A human being cannot entirely divorce themselves from liberty, to vacate life makes it all a non-issue.

Ill try another angle. Our DOI: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..."

 

[Tom in NYC]

A great way to think about this is to read Griswold v. Connecticut, the case the question was based on. It's a really interesting opinion by Justice Kennedy that focuses on liberty as the source of privacy rights (i.e. that they are an extension of liberty, not a separate right that needs to be defined).

 

[bolil]

yes that.

 

[DamianTV]

I saw Romney waffling on the right to privacy issue in regards to contraception? How would Ron Paul answered that question? I think the exact question was: Do the states have the right to ban contraceptions? In Ron's strict constitutionalist approach is a right to privacy a federal right or one to be decided at the state level?

One way or the other, those that want some form of contraception will either claim their privacy by using contraception, or will claim their privacy by having a back alley abortion. Those that have no intention of using contraception (either for their beliefs, or maybe they are trying to have a child) would not be affected, thus, they would not stick up for the rights of those that would choose contraception.

A couple of points here.

1: Making anything illegal only creates a Black Market for it, if there is a demand for it, just like drugs.

2: This usually comes from a Religious Perspective. Separation of Church and State.

3: This is a door to flat out making Sex Illegal.

4: The Government solution to any problem is usually worse than the problem itself.

5: If there is no actual problem, the one proposing that something is a problem usually has their own solution that benefits them in some way shape or form.

6: A Woman's Uterus is not the Property of the Federal Government. However, neither is it the Property of the State Government. And for that matter, it is no ones property but the Woman herself. Not even that of her Husbands, or Parents. When kids are born, that does become a different story...

7: The reason we have a Right to Privacy (Penumbra Right) is to prevent abuses of the State.

8: This is a perfect example of how Democracy fails. A Republic is designed to protect the Rights of the Individual from all of those who would infringe upon that Right, even when the Infringer is the Majority.

9: Our Rights do not come from them being Enumerated. Instead, Rights are Enumerated because we have them to begin with. Rights are not subject to someone elses allowance to have them. If that were the case, then we would only have Permissions, and not Rights.

We do not and should not ever need to enumerate Common Sense Rights. The Right to have a Nose, or to Breathe. This is why the Constitution was written. Powers not expressly permitted to the Government are DENIED to the Government. Thus, the Government does not have the power (which should be Common Sense) to Infringe upon the Right of a Human Being to have two eyes, a nose, and a mouth, and respect ones Right to the Freedom of Speech, or Religion.

That being said, this is also a First Amendment Right. If Contraception were Banned, it would be Banned usually based on someone elses Religious Beliefs. The 1st Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion. That means that we are free to choose our own Religious Beliefs and to be free of others (including both People and State) forcibly imposing their Religious Beliefs onto others, even those of the same Religious (or lack thereof) Beliefs. If it is not against your beliefs to use contraception or to have abortions, then so be it, but it should never be within someone elses power to disallow anyone any action based solely on their Religious Beliefs.

That is the very basis where if something someone else does offends your beliefs, as long as it does not involve you directly, tough shit. Likewise, you most likely do something that offends someone else in some way. And as long as those actions do not adversely and directly affect the offended individual (eating fish on a Tuesday or something facetious like that), you can tell them tough shit as well. That is one of the consequences of having too much freedom as opposed to having too little of it.