| | Mike,
At the very least, we are having a conversation/discussion about this issue. Because of the secrecy, it was not formerly possible to have a conversation/discussion about this issue. So there is that. We are at least exploring, which is almost always good (if not always good, everywhere and all the time). A relevant quote from Mortimer Adler's The Great Ideas (393):
Cicero said, "Men can settle their differences either by fighting as the beasts do or by talking. And the human way to settle differences is by talking."
It is the very nature of government in the administration of justice for the sake of peace, by the exercise of a monopoly of authorized force, to settle all human differences by talking instead of by fighting.
You appealed:
But let us agree that the Declaration expresses the common ethos of humanity, what we all want for ourselves, and are willing to grant others. Thank you for answering about what it is that you think animated a universal declaration of rights back in 1948. I fear that you are right. I fear that maybe back then they were of the mind that you might be able to get away with willfully granting rights to others (which entails the powers to take back what you granted, later). I'm of a differing mindset about rights however, which should come as no surprise to you:
Right rights aren't rights to whatever it is that you want on earth (provided by others whether they like it or not), even if you are willing to give others whatever it is that they want on earth. This is an altruist ploy: Give flagrantly to others, so that you can later make demands on them. The proper foundation of rights is our metaphysical needs, not our often-fleeting, rarely-validated, subjective desires.
Rights aren't right because we want them, they are right for us because we need them. Because of the ideological infancy of the philosophy of rights, some of the people -- even some of the intellectuals -- walking the earth may still be in disagreement with this. But their divergence from the truth of the matter doesn't make the truth less true.
What does "arbitrary" mean? As noted, if you are planning to commit a crime, to harm someone or their property, then you cannot claim protection of privacy. How do we know what you are planning? Good question. It seems we need an entry point, some kind of a tip-off that an individual actually really is up to no good -- with some measure of confirmable probability (e.g., 70%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 100%). After the defined entry point (the tip-off), then law enforcement would begin by taking some espionage-type steps required in order to uncover your otherwise-private plans. Before the defined entry point, there should be complete privacy -- like the kind outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Katz decision of the US Supreme Court was about your "reasonable expectation of privacy." But that -- contrary to intuition -- integrates with an inalienable, individual right to privacy (as does the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution). That being so, it is a non sequitur as a talking-point regarding any feigned or alluded opposition to a "right to privacy." Just because the highest court declared that you can reasonable expect not to have your privacy violated, does not say whether it is the case -- based on the metaphysical needs of mankind -- that you have a right to privacy. It makes no judgment either way on that issue.
I understand the deeper issue: Harry Binswanger is going to be arrested for "economic terrorism" because he is a gold hoarder. He will be outraged. So many t[h]ings become illegal as the government expands its powers. But, again, in a democracy, we do this to ourselves, or to each other. Mothers Against Drunk Driving are a perfect example. Well, what are you offering as a solution to this conundrum? My solution is m[I]narchy (a government of justice and law, rather than a government of men and zeal), which costs less that a trillion a year to implement, involves up to a 5% tax (or user fee) on wealth creation, and involves such a harsh existential limit on the expansion of powers (government never larger than 5% of the private sector) that it becomes essentially impossible for moochers and looters to effectively co-opt and misuse in service to their own irrational, immoral desires. Is that your solution, too, or do you have something else in mind?
In John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, the three branches were Executive, Legislative, and Diplomatic. (Diplomats were independent of the crown because of the nature of their work. They could be recalled, of course.) The courts were not a branch of the government. The courts were an institution of the community as protection against the government. The king's men had to go to a court of competent jurisdiction and get a warrant and a court officer would accompany them.
It is a nice practice ...
Interesting example. Though I wonder how crucial this distinction is. Courts either provide a check and balance or not, whether we verbally say that they are government entities or not. If the government is a government of justice and law, it might not matter whether courts are part of the government or not. Let's pretend that a court got corrupted and became a court of men and zeal, rather than of justice and law. Let's say that a court dictated that everyone, everywhere is entitled to 3 square meals a day, regardless of circumstance or economic outcomes. Could they enforce this without the approval of the executive branch of the government?
No.
What if they were part of the government, would that change things?
No.
If m[I]narchy (government of justice and law) is adopted, it doesn't seem to matter whether you have identical checks and balances or not -- as there are more places to provide checks and balances under m[I]narchy (because implementation under m[I]narchy requires a buy-in from the citizenry which is normally bypassed in a welfare state).
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/30, 11:00am)
|
|
