RE: Greg: Democracy?

[Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>]

Ed;

On Thursday, February 04, 1999 11:41 PM, Edward Britton 
[SMTP:fremin@geocities.com] wrote:
> Greg:
>
> >Hmmm...sounds like we're in "violent" agreement! -- gp
>
> I suspected we might be, but I'm not sure about that "violent" part :-)
>
> While I am generally liberal and equally subscribe to the philosophy of a
> basic need for social welfare programs, I've never been sure why it was
> necessary to give up our rights in the maintenance of same.
>
> Of what benefit to providing for the "security" of Americans against 
crime,
> for example, are the newest and most privacy-invasive laws? How, to 
further
> elaborate, are the interests of society served by maintaining a database 
of
> information on law abiding citizens, either through financial 
institutions
> or motor vehicle records?

  I would distinguish between the abnegation of rights, of liberty, of 
freedom and privacy engendered by the welfare state from the compromises 
that people seem willing to put up with to stop crime, and I would 
differentiate those from financial databases and the like that businesses 
amass for marketing purposes.

  If we embrace the welfare state and the notion of "positive rights" we 
must necessarily relinquish our freedom and our right to privacy. If the 
state is to ensure, and therefore _control_ the economic position of 
individuals, then the state must have unrestricted access to their 
financial and economic information. Privacy is gone.

  If it is the duty of society to provide, not a right to _pursue_ 
employment but a right to _have_ employment, then an impersonal state, with 
its heavy-handed use of force, must get involved in how people conduct 
trade and business amongst themselves. In order to do that, the government 
must have unrestricted access to information about such trades. Who hired 
whom, how much they are paid, so that one person is not "unfairly" paid 
more than another, etc. If we buy into the notion that it is society's role 
to ensure not "equal opportunity" but "equal outcome" then the state must 
get involved in controlling the lives of everyone. They must know how much 
everyone makes, so that they can redistribute it "fairly." They have to 
watch spending patterns, etc., to ensure compliance. What people, for some 
odd reason, don't seem to grasp is that as soon as you rely on a collective 
state to begin to provide guarantees, based on the mythical (and immoral) 
notion that people who have less somehow have a "right" to the production, 
the energy, the products, of those who have "more" by virtue of the blank 
check of "need", then you must ultimately forfeit the right to privacy, or 
any other rights you may think you have. After all, there will always be 
someone who comes along who is even more needy than you, or who at least 
claims to be. The state must track the personal information on everyone, to 
be sure no one is sneaking by the "system" and gaining an "unfair" 
advantage.

  Hence, I agree with your statement that it would be closer to an ideal 
situation if we lived in a nation where people are allowed to be 
responsible for themselves WITHOUT governmental intervention into their 
lives. Amen! You wrote that "This "utopia" would truly be one in which 
privacy were respected and upheld as a right." Amen! You capped it off by 
saying ". . .Or, we can continue lazily on our current path toward economic 
totalitarianism." Actually, it is totalitarianism in every respect, not 
just economic. If you uphold privacy as a right, you can't do it for some, 
and not for others. Double standards are not sustainable except by coercion 
and raw force.

  So I see a fundamental disconnect, a logical (and oft proven) fallacy, in 
the notion that you can somehow shackle one part of society and yet 
preserve some meaningful notion of rights, of liberty, for anyone. Either 
government is invasively IN our lives, or it is OUT of our lives. You can't 
have it both ways.

  When the government gets into the welfare, redistribution business; when 
the government is viewed as responsible not simply for ensuring that you 
can _pursue_ a career, but that you are _guaranteed_ one; when the 
government is responsible not for protecting your right to earn and 
produce, but is responsible for deciding how much of what you produce you 
can keep, then the government must know all that is "necessary" to know to 
ensure a "fair" redistribution. And they must know it about everyone. The 
state must by definition get involved in controlling your life. You have 
sacrificed your privacy, your liberty, and your freedom, and moved 
decidedly down the road to totalitarianism. We are a fair way down that 
road today. The road to the welfare state is awash in the blood of its 
victims.

  I'll save the issues of compromising rights to gain a sense of security 
against criminal acts, and the issue of business databases, for a 
subsequent installment.

Best,

  -- Greg