“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin

”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”

”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”

”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

”If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

”He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.”

”Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.”

”Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.”
Ben Franklin


There is a difference between "public well-being" and "common good". It is the difference between "democracy" and "rule of law". Democracy is best described by "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner". Public well-being is served when lamb is for dinner. Common good is served when all individuals rights are protected in a common way. When politicians want to get elected they appeal to the wolves that a vote for him is a vote for lamb for dinner. So, while lamb for dinner is not lawful, it becomes legal until the lambs challenge it in court. But even then, government will lie and still enforce lamb for dinner. And now the lambs must protect them selves from both the wolves and the government agents "just doing their job".


And yes, my right to swing my fist does indeed end where your nose begins. But government only protects you nose from my fist if there is money in it for them. From you because they say to promote public well-being, your nose must be licensed - for a fee. Oh, and my fist also requires a license fee. But when my fist injures your nose, you are not remedied but the fines extorted out of me go to the government. These fines and fees are what Federick Bastiat calls "legal theft".


For me, there are two general reasons why privacy is important.The first is that privacy helps individuals maintain their autonomy and individuality. People define themselves by exercising power over information about themselves and a free country does not ask people to answer for the choices they make about what information is shared and what is held close. At the same time, this does not mean that public policy should shield people from the costs of their choices. American privacy allows our many cultures and subcultures to define for themselves how personal information moves in the economy and society.A second reason that privacy is important is because of its functional benefits. This area has been especially slippery for policy-makers because they have often use the term "privacy" to refer to one or more of privacy's benefits.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.