# How can a Libertarian be opposed to the Right to Privacy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2011, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001 "2011-11-05T22:33:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/21 "2011-11-06T00:47:12Z")
Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced a [bill](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958:) that is designed to effectively re-authorize state anti-contraception and anti-sodomy laws. He’s a master of disingenuity, so I’m sure he’d say that its born out of a desire to rein in federal overreaching rather than take away peoples’ constitutionally-protected (according to the only body that matters here) freedoms, but when the sole purpose of his bill is to restart enforcement of those laws, I don’t really see a distinction that matters. ---
**Author:** ![Linden\_Arden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/53a042/32.png) [@Linden\_Arden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linden_Arden)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/22 "2011-11-06T00:55:48Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > OK, I see the score here. Have a good one, buddy, I’m out. Look into Open Society and George Soros. He is the real freedom lover - and yes, Soros is a rationalist and not a theocrat (too bad for Ron Paul fans). Soros Open Society - pro-capitalism, pro-drugs, pro-freedom -anti Theocrat! Yes - Soros hates Fascists like Bush/Cheney - old news now - who cares? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/23 "2011-11-06T00:56:29Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced a [bill](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958:) that is designed to effectively re-authorize state anti-contraception and anti-sodomy laws. He’s a master of disingenuity, so I’m sure he’d say that its born out of a desire to rein in federal overreaching rather than take away peoples’ constitutionally-protected (according to the only body that matters here) freedoms, but when the sole purpose of his bill is to restart enforcement of those laws, I don’t really see a distinction that matters. Isn’t it possible that he believes that (a) it should be a matter for state law rather than federal law, _ **and** _ that (b) each state should make contraception and sodomy legal? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/24 "2011-11-06T00:56:39Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > …they want to enshrine Catholic Wahabi style Sharia’ law in the USA. It’s not just communism, it’s _fascist_ communism! ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/25 "2011-11-06T00:57:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Isn’t it possible that he believes that (a) it should be a matter for state law rather than federal law, _ **and** _ that (b) each state should make contraception and sodomy legal? I’m sure that’s exactly how he’d put it. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/26 "2011-11-06T01:16:06Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Let’s assume that a person believes that bills of attainder are just really awesome, and any government that isn’t allowed to issue bills of attainder is a worthless creation and shouldn’t exist. They then read the U.S. Constitution, and see the part where it says that the U.S. federal government cannot issue bills of attainder. Someone wants the U.S. federal government to issue a bill of attainder and asks this person’s opinion, and this person says “I believe the U.S. federal government is not allowed to issue a bill of attainder.” But shouldn’t such a person support an amendment so the government would be allowed to do that? The fact that the U.S. constitution allows amendments allows seems to get ignored in discussions like this. > [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > Now you are befuddled and confused. This side pocket nonsense into “bills of attainder” is proof. > > I simply want a person to be free in their private endeavors - a position that you Paultards cannot accept. Way to completely miss his point. It had nothing to do with bills of attainder, that was just a neutral, concrete example. ---
**Author:** ![Linden\_Arden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/53a042/32.png) [@Linden\_Arden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linden_Arden)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/27 "2011-11-06T02:20:16Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > Way to completely miss his point. It had nothing to do with bills of attainder, that was just a neutral, concrete example. What is his point? Why can’t he simply state it? Why is this “point” cloaked in BSer talk? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/28 "2011-11-06T02:41:26Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > What is his point? Why can’t he simply state it? > > Why is this “point” cloaked in BSer talk? He stated it no less than three times in the simplest terms. Saying that I like better strawberry-flavored ice cream, but that the ice cream currently being served is chocolate-flavored isn’t contradicting myself. ---
**Author:** ![Linden\_Arden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/53a042/32.png) [@Linden\_Arden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linden_Arden)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/29 "2011-11-06T02:50:42Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > He stated it no less than three times in the simplest terms. Saying that I like better strawberry-flavored ice cream, but that the ice cream currently being served is chocolate-flavored isn’t contradicting myself. No, rambling on about “bills of attainder” is a waste of time. And so is rambling on about your favorite ice cream flava. I simply want to know why conservatives hate our god-damned (as Buckley would say) RIGHT TO PRIVACY. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/30 "2011-11-06T04:43:09Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > … I don’t really understand the urge to bash the libertarian philosophy, unless it is because it is apparently difficult to find in popular media any cogent spokespeople, so that the philosophy itself is not understood. I believe that this is not because such spokespeople don’t exist, but because they have difficulty getting any airtime. I don’t know about “popular media;” I get most of my info on libertarianism at SDMB. Do libertarians have cogent spokespeople here? Are the Mods & Admins denying them “airtime”? I recall three threads started by libertarians to explain their beliefs. One required that we watch a 12-hour video by Lord Friedman before he would deign to enlighten us. The other two were anti-vaccine gold nuts. One of them found the Federal Reserve “pernicious” because it targeted a non-zero inflation rate. I agreed with the other when he proudly declared that he “opposed bad government regulations but supported good ones.” None of the libertarians have ever answered me when I asked how elections work in their ideal system. This is rather a key question, actually; once you contemplate how their ideas would work _in practice_ you come up with something like Pinochet’s Kleptocracy (a system designed, not coincidentally, by Lord Friedman himself). ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/31 "2011-11-06T05:02:52Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > Privacy would seem to be an essential building block of Liberty. I would love to hear an explanation of how you figure this. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/32 "2011-11-06T14:32:51Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > The famous case ‘Lawrence vs. Texas’ changed my mind forever about so called “libertarians” - they are statists of another stripe - that is all. If you want to know what Ron Paul thinks about the Lawrence v Texas case, just ask him: > [@Ron Paul](#): > > Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy”. Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. Clearly he is against BOTH sodomy laws in Texas, as well as the federal government telling Texas what laws it can and can’t have. Two separate and distinct issues. As for Napolitano, you need to remember that first and foremost he is an entertainer, with some legal background. Most of what he says is playing to the crowd. If you want to bitch about stupid things he says, a better attack would be that he justified the anti-sodomy laws because, “they are hardly ever enforced.” As to Scalia: he was arguing that “it is a state’s right issue,” Napolitano said. “He may not have voted for this law … but he believes the people of Texas should be able to establish their own laws, not the nine unelected justices in Washington, D.C.” ([from here](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90513,00.html)) Two separate issues. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/33 "2011-11-06T15:32:22Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I don’t know about “popular media;” I get most of my info on libertarianism at SDMB. Do libertarians have cogent spokespeople here? Are the Mods & Admins denying them “airtime”? > > I recall three threads started by libertarians to explain their beliefs. One required that we watch a 12-hour video by Lord Friedman before he would deign to enlighten us. The other two were anti-vaccine gold nuts. One of them found the Federal Reserve “pernicious” because it targeted a non-zero inflation rate. I agreed with the other when he proudly declared that he “opposed bad government regulations but supported good ones.” > > None of the libertarians have ever answered me when I asked how elections work in their ideal system. This is rather a key question, actually; once you contemplate how their ideas would work _in practice_ you come up with something like Pinochet’s Kleptocracy (a system designed, not coincidentally, by Lord Friedman himself). What a bizarre post. First, libertarianism is not some mysterious ungraspable thing, and it doesn’t necessarily involve people into fringe ideas like eliminating the federal reserve and the gold standard, etc. But it does include lots of different flavors, and anyone can call themselves a libertarian if they want to. The basic idea uniting all (American) libertarians is the idea of a smaller government than we currently have–that the government’s ability to do things should be restricted more than it is now. Here’s a good place to start for some background reading: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) Second, a person’s views on how to hold elections is really orthogonal to whether they are a libertarian or not. Stated another way, there’s no libertarian view on how to hold elections. I don’t even really understand what you are getting at there. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/34 "2011-11-06T16:18:34Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > B) The federal government is bigger than state government. Big government doesn’t refer to physical size, or number of politicians. The government of Texas isn’t bigger than the government of Rhode Island. On the other hand, the heavily restrictive government of North Korea is bigger than the less restrictive government of South Korea. The Texas government was “big” when it restricted sodomy, while the government of Massachusetts was small when it allowed same sex marriage. Big vs small refers to the involvement of the government. Liberals like a small government when it comes to things like what happens in the bedroom, and within a woman’s body. Conservatives like small government when it comes to things like gun ownership. > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > III) Therefore the federal government telling a state what to do is anti-liberty. No, it was anti-constitution. As far as I can tell, the US constitution grants states the right to set their own laws, and have their own constitutions. The issue at hand was whether or not the federal government could strike down a state law, or refuses to recognize same sex marriage. In this example, it seems liberals are angry because it was a liberal ox being gored (sodomy laws and by their extension gay rights). In the 60s we had the federal government forcing states to desegregate their schools. Also a liberal ox. But we also have cases where the federal government blocks marijuana laws like in California, now the federal government isn’t so progressive. Or a system where the federal government dictates a minimum drinking age through highway funding. Those in effect are all cases of the federal government infringing on state’s rights to set their own laws. Do you see now how your premises were flawed leading to an erroneous conclusion? > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > If you take the view that any federal actions not explicitly written into the constitution using kindergarten language are an expansion of the federal government into areas where it doesn’t belong, then you might very well think that there is no federal right to privacy binding on the states. What is the alternative? That the federal government can do what ever it wants when ever it wants and the constitution is just sort of a nice suggestion? > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > And if you think big government is necessarily more antithetical to liberty than smaller government, you might very well think that the federal government stopping a state government from actively harming you is worse than the state harming you. See, again you made the same mistake. The issue isn’t about “worse or better.” The federal government telling the states what to do is bad, and so is a state restricting sodomy. Two things can be bad at the same time. > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > It’s a little like saying that a roof is anti-dryness because it’s bigger than an umbrella, but that really is how I think some people think. Except that is in no way what people are saying. You are wrong in your assessment of how some people think. BOTH the roof and they umbrella are anti-dryness, size is of no importance here. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/35 "2011-11-06T17:14:31Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > I simply want a person to be free in their private endeavors - a position that you Paultards cannot accept. Please keep terms like “Paultard” in the Pit. They don’t belong in a serious discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stately_Greek_Automaton)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/36 "2011-11-06T17:42:18Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The point is that there’s a difference between (i) what a person believes the best possible government should be allowed to do or not do and (ii) what that person believes any particular government is allowed to do or not do. In your scenario, if we were to call a person who supports bills of attainder an attainderist, would you classify the person in your scenario as such? If there were a law passed legalizing kitten kicking, would it make me pro animal cruelty if I were to state kitten kicking is legal? > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I would love to hear an explanation of how you figure this. I guess it depends if we’re talking liberty for individuals or liberty for corporations, huh? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/37 "2011-11-06T18:09:40Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Second, a person’s views on how to hold elections is really orthogonal to whether they are a libertarian or not. Stated another way, there’s no libertarian view on how to hold elections. I don’t even really understand what you are getting at there. Governments make laws. Some laws benefit rich property owners; some benefit ordinary unpropertied people. With democratic elections, government is chosen by a majority. “Liberty” means, to a libertarian, property rights. The ruling majority will be, relatively “have nots”, not “haves.” Therefore, to retain its charter a “libertarian” government will necessary tend to overturn majority opinion. You’ll end up with a police authority subservient not to majority rule, but to the property owners. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/38 "2011-11-06T18:35:01Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Governments make laws. > Some laws benefit rich property owners; some benefit ordinary unpropertied people. > With democratic elections, government is chosen by a majority. > “Liberty” means, to a libertarian, property rights. > The ruling majority will be, relatively “have nots”, not “haves.” > Therefore, to retain its charter a “libertarian” government will necessary tend to overturn majority opinion. > You’ll end up with a police authority subservient not to majority rule, but to the property owners. You forgot to add IMHO. At least you got the first two lines right. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/39 "2011-11-06T18:59:55Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > You forgot to add IMHO. At least you got the first two lines right. Gibberish. Say something intelligible or Take it to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/40 "2011-11-06T22:13:55Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Gibberish. Say something intelligible or Take it to the Pit. You’ve been on this message board since 2009 and didn’t know that IMHO means “In My Humble Opinion”? What you wrote there was your opinion, which is fine if this was a thread posted in IMHO or the pit. Unless of course you were witnessing, which would make this the perfect forum for your post. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001.md?page=3)