Is there a right to privacy?

[furface]

Originally Posted by Curlz31

Who is the victim?

What you're getting at is reasonable in a common sense level. However, constitutionally it's not entirely sound. There are arguments that the 5th Amendment's "due process" clause contains a ban on victimless crimes, but a strict constructionist would probably argue otherwise. There is no explicit ban on victimless crimes in the Constitution.

I take the position that States should have the right to pass laws like this. If you want to have a Southern Baptist government in Mississippi, by all means do it. Just move out of Mississippi if you don't like it.

State rights are so very important because the alternative to them is massively oppressive federal government like we have. My view is that if states were given more leeway to do the things that people wanted to do, people would tend to congregate in the States they felt comfortable in, and state governments would become much more consensual in turn.

[Curlz31]

Originally Posted by furface

What you're getting at is reasonable in a common sense level.

It is logical, yes. Pity common sense, isn't so common.

However, constitutionally it's not entirely sound.

That's because the Constitution is a flawed document.

At least you have acknowledge common sense > consitution. Or are you suggesting it is the other way around? Haha.

There are arguments that the 5th Amendment's "due process" clause contains a ban on victimless crimes, but a strict constructionist would probably argue otherwise.

And the Supreme Court judges selected by the President, argue in favour on the political elite and an expansion of state power. Always have, always will. Why did you think they got the job?

Judges can interpret the law, anyway they want. And no, don't try refute this - in that they apply 'principles' and 'methods', please get your hand of it and wake up and smell the roses.

There is no explicit ban on victimless crimes in the Constitution.

Back in the day, ala the US Constitution - it was a crime to be black...

I take the position that States should have the right to pass laws like this.

I don't. So what happens to me? By what right do they govern? Why are they allowed to initiate violence against me? I have done nothing to no-one.

If you want to have a Southern Baptist government in Mississippi, by all means do it. Just move out of Mississippi if you don't like it.

Take it or leave fallacy.

Why, in effect, tell the victim of assault-by-taxation "if you don't like it you can leave"? That position simply affirms that opposition to the violence of taxation will beget more violence. Why not say the things to victims of physical and sexual assault?

State rights are so very important because the alternative to them is massively oppressive federal government like we have.

The states had more rights under the articles of confederation. Do you support than over the U.S Constitution? Bear in mind, there were massive amounts of people who were against it. Anti Federalists.

My view is that if states were given more leeway to do the things that people wanted to do, people would tend to congregate in the States they felt comfortable in, and state governments would become much more consensual in turn.

They can. They can secede. Oh wait! They tried that... and it resulted in a Civil War. Lincoln "saved" the Union... with the blood of 600,000 peoples lives. Was it worth 1 life? No. Well.. maybe Lincolns.

[furface]

I agree the Constitution is a flawed document. I'm not one to view it as some sort of supernatural incarnation like the Bible or the Quran.

However, I don't agree that local communities shouldn't have the right to create laws and interpret things in a way they see fit. The "we need to protect people from themselves" concept is a common argument used for invading places like Iraq & Afghanistan. In America the Constitution requires republican forms of government for the states anyway.

People should have the right to vote in fascism if they want. What business is it of yours if they do? Again, if they don't like it they can leave. The Constitution also guarantees that, at least at this point it does. It didn't before the 14th Amendment, or at least the Supreme Court claimed it didn't with Dred Scot, at least partially.

[Curlz31]

Originally Posted by furface

I agree the Constitution is a flawed document. I'm not one to view it as some sort of supernatural incarnation like the Bible or the Quran.

However, I don't agree that local communities shouldn't have the right to create laws and interpret things in a way they see fit. The "we need to protect people from themselves" concept is a common argument used for invading places like Iraq & Afghanistan. In America the Constitution requires republican forms of government for the states anyway.

People should have the right to vote in fascism if they want. What business is it of yours if they do? Again, if they don't like it they can leave. The Constitution also guarantees that, at least at this point it does. It didn't before the 14th Amendment, or at least the Supreme Court claimed it didn't with Dred Scot, at least partially.

You avoided answering my questions, and arguments. You continued to use the exact same fallacies. These are invalid arguments. This is unfortunate.

[furface]

Maybe you can state your questions in a clearer manner and state exactly what your evidence for something being fallacious is. Merely claiming something is a fallacy does not make it a fallacy. I have almost zero patience for purely rhetorical arguments, so I might not even respond to you, but if you can present me with some true objectively logical constructions I will gladly engage with you.

[Curlz31]

Originally Posted by furface

Maybe you can state your questions in a clearer manner and state exactly what your evidence for something being fallacious is. Merely claiming something is a fallacy does not make it a fallacy. I have almost zero patience for purely rhetorical arguments, so I might not even respond to you, but if you can present me with some true objectively logical constructions I will gladly engage with you.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...5&postcount=12

What is not clear? Please highlight the responses you do not understand.

Maybe you should originally asked for more clarification / elaboration, instead of ignoring it and continuing to commit the same errors.

[DamianTV]

I hope this will distract you two from arguing with each other and look at the big picture of what is going on...

---

In response to "Who is the victim", I want to take a step back to that statement and try to clarify it with definition.

I think the easiest way to put it is like this:

Unlawful = There IS a victim. Someone got hurt. Murder.
Illegal = There IS NO victim. Nobody got hurt. Speeding Ticket.

Also have to keep in mind that, although our system of government when origianally designed, was not perfect, it was designed to be balanced. Balance being more important than perfect.

Congress WRITES the LAWS.
Presidential or Executive Branch ENFORCES the LAWS.
Courts INTERPRET the LAWS.

Thus, the problem isnt with the design of the government, but the application. Every law, every single law is subject to interpretation in the court system. If the Courts stood up and said that enforcing such and such a law was Unconstitutional, then the law is invalidated, and balance is maintained. But when the Courts take any crime or dispute and apply a judgement that is almost always in favor of "the government can do what ever the hell it wants and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it" type of attitude, then again the problem isnt the system itself, it is unbalanced because of the way it is applied, and getting crooked judges and lawyers and other selve serving interests in ANY seat is equally dangerous.

How many laws did Bush write while he was in office? Wire Tapping? Came from his office. How many times has the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government abuse over the rights of the ordinary man, who didnt have money to pay for bigtime lawyers? How many times has a court case come down to which lawyer is the better salesman? How many times have we gone to war without authorization from Congress?

The Federal Government as it was intended by those that set up our form of government to begin with knew this and tried to make the system balanced, but couldnt do a whole hell of a lot to keep corrupt people from getting into positions of power and applying their corruption. If only one branch of the government was corrupt, we would probably be ok because the other two would keep the out of balance branch in check. But all three are fucked. We all know this. The Constitution, unfortuantely, even as Bush said, its just a bunch of words on paper. Words themselves have no meaning without someone to enforce the meaning of those words.

The Right to Privacy died with the Constitution.

[Bradley in DC]

Yes, there is a right to privacy.

In tort law privacy relates to 1) intrusion on a person's solitude; 2) public disclosure of private facts about a person; 3) publicity that places a person in a false light; and 4) taking a person's name or likeness for the advantage of someone else (as in an advertisement).

See also POSNER, THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY 12 Ga. L. Rev. 393 (1978)

[Curlz31]

Originally Posted by DamianTV

In response to "Who is the victim", I want to take a step back to that statement and try to clarify it with definition.

I think the easiest way to put it is like this:

Unlawful = There IS a victim. Someone got hurt. Murder.
Illegal = There IS NO victim. Nobody got hurt. Speeding Ticket.

That isn't a definition, but ok.. I'll run with it.

"Unlawful" - what type of law is being broken? And by that I mean, natural law, or legal positivism?

It would be the former, and the said action is a violation of the non aggression axiom.

"Illegal" - There IS a victim. It is the person who got the speeding ticket. There is the threat of violence imposed against them by the State. They did not harm anyone, they did not violate the NAP. If you do not pay the tickets, look out. Jail. And if you resist = death.

Thus, the problem isnt with the design of the government, but the application.

No, it's with the nature of government. It is a parasitic entity. It does not produce, it only consumes, it is a criminal gang writ large.

[bobbyw24]

In Florida, we have the Constitutional Right to Privacy

SECTION 23. Right of privacy.--Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

History.--Added, C.S. for H.J.R. 387, 1980; adopted 1980; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.