# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/81 "2011-11-14T17:04:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That right there is something I would have a problem with. Why single out abortion as something you dont want to fund? In theory Libertarians are against funding a whole lot of stuff so when they have an abortion line item in their platform, it tells me that libertarians have been coopted. [Here you go.](http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Abortion.htm) That poster actually got the history backwards, but this explains the context of opposing government funding for abortions (ie, some people consider it murder): "Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. Source: National platform adopted at Denver L.P. convention May 30, 2008 Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births. Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party Jul 2, 2000" Emphasis added to dates for clarity. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/82 "2011-11-14T18:21:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > [Here you go.](http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Abortion.htm) That poster actually got the history backwards, but this explains the context of opposing government funding for abortions (ie, some people consider it murder): > > "Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion > > Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. > Source: National platform adopted at Denver L.P. convention May 30, 2008 > Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state > > Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. > > It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births. > Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party Jul 2, 2000" > > Emphasis added to dates for clarity. I’m guilty of not being aware of the more recent platform shift. Haven’t been too political the last few years, so I have let it slip. ---
**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 14, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/83 "2011-11-14T21:23:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not a Libertarian, so what difference does it make? Besides, I could be in favor of the ruling, as a Constitutionalist, and against any legislation banning birth control, as a Libertarian. You should educate yourself on the difference. People have tried to explain that to you in this thread, but to no avail. I didn’t ask if you were a Libertarian. I asked because you demonstrate an editorial slant. So you are either an Originalist or a Conservative given your opposition to the Right to Privacy. I suspect that given an earlier time in US history the Right to Privacy would be considered a “natural right” - if there is really such a thing. (idea for new thread) ---
**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 14, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/84 "2011-11-14T21:29:02Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The US Constitution does indeed have penumbras, the US Supreme Court says so, and they are the law of the land. The Paultard in chief supports his fantasy version of the US Constitution that does not have privacy rights because the supposed strict constructionism, if adopted by overthrowing 50 years of continuous constitutional jurisprudence the way he wants it overthrown would eliminate privacy rights. > > Penumbras were adopted because the SCOTUS wanted to rule as narrowly as possible in accordance with the tradition of US jurisprudence. However, privacy is far more accessible to the plain meaning of the 9th Amendment: > > [Understanding the Ninth Amendment's Effect and History](http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/p/9th_amendment.htm) > > That pretty plainly rejects the “strict constructionist” view that the absence of any right, such as privacy, shall not be used to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Such denial and disparagement is exactly what strict construction is all about: denying non-enumerated rights such as privacy. Strict constructionism is anything but strict constructionism when it comes to the 9th Amendment, the 9th Symphony of American Rights. > > Strict Constructionism that denies the 9th, privacy and claims liberty and libertarianism is the kosher bacon of political philosophy. > > Strict Constructionists, even by the fake propaganda name, ignore the plain text of the Constitution when it comes do providing people with the basic human decency of privacy. But when it is convenient for them to assign to the Founding Fathers the intent to make corporations “people”, they are more than happy to interpolate into the constitution what simply isn’t there and was never intended because it suits the interests of their political patrons, namely corporations. The other end of this argument is to look at the jurisprudence of privacy for corporations in this country: it far exceeds the scope of privacy for human beings. This is clearly the the most cogent opinion on the subject here (minus the slur on Paul) - it got no rebuttal of value. Just a note. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/85 "2011-11-14T21:56:11Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > This is clearly the the most cogent opinion on the subject here (minus the slur on Paul) - it got no rebuttal of value. Just a note. I would certainly agree that so-called “strict constructionism” that would fail to enforce the ninth amendment is not strict constructionism but instead a denial of constitutional protections. I still think that you are missing some of the finer points about “privacy” and the 4th amendment debate. The fourthe Amendment literally provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” has an overlap with privacy, for sure. There is no way that we could be so “secure” without concerning ourselves with privacy. However, while the idea of a right of privacy has merit in 4th amendment discussion, a “right to privacy” under the fourth amendment should not be focused on to the point of discarding a “right to be secure…” It’s not that Mr. Paul is **against** privacy, he is against the supreme court dropping **security** as a legal construct in favor of a less full doctrine. I am also a Libertarian who disaproves of current S. Ct. precedent but not because I do not value privacy. A right to privacy, distinct from a right to be secure in my papers and effects and person and home, should be a 9th amendment issue rather than a 4th Amendment issue. It’s what the court had to abandon to come up with the current “right to privacy” that Mr. Paul dislikes, niot nearly as much as a right to privacy itself. I guarantee Mr. Paul wants to uphold your security in your papers and effects. That can’t be done without respecting privacy. A stand-alone right to privacy is not to be found in the fourth amendment, though a stand-alone right to privacy is not a bad idea. We simply want the court to start focusing about our security from the government rather than focusing on our privacy. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/86 "2011-11-14T21:58:52Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > This is clearly the the most cogent opinion on the subject here (minus the slur on Paul) - it got no rebuttal of value. Just a note. and actually, Linden, I have said it before in post #74, and you have failed to discuss it. ---
**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 14, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/87 "2011-11-14T22:05:20Z")
> [@David42](#): > > It’s what the court had to abandon to come up with the current “right to privacy” that Mr. Paul dislikes, niot nearly as much as a right to privacy itself. I guarantee Mr. Paul wants to uphold your security in your papers and effects. That can’t be done without respecting privacy. A stand-alone right to privacy is not to be found in the fourth amendment, though a stand-alone right to privacy is not a bad idea. We simply want the court to start focusing about our security from the government rather than focusing on our privacy. What did the court abandon in Griswold that Ron Paul dislikes? I missed it for sure. I can’t take Ron Paul seriously for many reasons although I am a Hayek fan. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/88 "2011-11-14T22:14:04Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > What did the court abandon in Griswold that Ron Paul dislikes? > > I missed it for sure. I can’t take Ron Paul seriously for many reasons although I am a Hayek fan. I have never heard Mr. Paul talk specifically about Griswold. I don’t know. But I do know what an awful lot of libertarians think, and I do not know any who are against privacy, _per se_. Can you direct me to his opinion on Griswold, more than just a soundbite? ---
**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 14, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/89 "2011-11-14T22:43:36Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I have never heard Mr. Paul talk specifically about Griswold. I don’t know. But I do know what an awful lot of libertarians think, and I do not know any who are against privacy, _per se_. > > Can you direct me to his opinion on Griswold, more than just a soundbite? Ron Paul famously said “The State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.” I have seen this quote many times although I have not sourced it. From a classical liberal perspective (Hayek) I find Ron Paul a complete crackpot. His love of the book on the Federal Reserve (Creature from Jekyll Island) from the grifter Griffin confirms it. Libertarianism will be much better served without the Pauls. ---
**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 14, 2011, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/90 "2011-11-14T22:50:23Z")
Source found for Ron Paul anti-freedom quote ---- > **[The Imaginery Constitution - LewRockwell](https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/08/ron-paul/the-imaginery-constitution/)** > > Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution by Rep. Ron Paul, MD by Rep. Ron Paul, MD It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From gay rights to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments,... “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. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.” ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/91 "2011-11-14T22:58:16Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > Source found for Ron Paul anti-freedom quote ---- > > [The Imaginery Constitution - LewRockwell](http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html) > > “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. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.” That’s not an anti-freedom position. Thats a position on how to administer it. It’s not the same thing as saying “People should go to jail for having gay sex,” that you seem to make it out to be. Some people say that the end justifies the means. Others say that even though the end is justified, some means aren’t appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/92 "2011-11-14T23:00:40Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > Source found for Ron Paul anti-freedom quote ---- > > [The Imaginery Constitution - LewRockwell](http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html) > > “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. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.” I’ll say this one more time, but you know what they say about horses and water… He is making an argument about federalism or constitutionalism, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Libertarianism. Note that he specifically calls sodomy laws “ridiculous”. But he thinks the states should be the controling authority, not the feds. Many Libertarians would say the government should have no authority to tax, but it would be silly to claim that the US Constitution does not give the government that authority, whether you were a Libertarian or not. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/93 "2011-11-14T23:16:59Z")
I wholeheartedly believe that one of the great things about America that is being eroded is the fact that most criminal matters come under the jurisdiction of the states and therefore, when criminal law concerns thorny issues that are debatable and people naturally disagree with one another, there is great value in different states deciding to outlaw certain different things. Say you wanna smoke pot and california allows that but Texas doesn’t, it is a beautiful thing that a person can make the choice to live in california and not Texas. If most people in Nebraska want to outlaw abortion, let them, and let the ones who might want an abortion move to the state that allows that. In this way the Great American Experiment could be of great use to us. We could watch which state does what and see which states flourish as a result of their policies and which ones decline. But we can’t have that because we have an increasing sense that the laws in all fifty states must be exactly the same in all cases. Now the foregoing is my opinion, what I would wish for if I could wave a magic wand and have it be so. Nevertheless, I also believe that the federal bill of rights is a guarantee to me by the federal government that applies to me personally, as an object of action, rather than a guarantee to me on the basis of who the actor is. I see little guarantee to a federal right to privacy if a state can trample it. Where is the federal government enforcing their guarantee to me there? That guarantee comes first, and the only nationwide standard on criminal law has to come from the protections in the bill of rights. But hardly anyone sees the bill of rights that way. So I would slightlty disagree with Mr. Paul. But his notion that the end does not outweigh the means I entirely approve of. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/94 "2011-11-14T23:22:06Z")
And as far as a lot of things being described as Mr. paul being against, such as “birth control,” it is actually the federal funding of such issues that he’s against. I may think it is fine and dandy for you to eat ten punds of gummy bears a day, but, I have another opinion if you think I have to pay for your gummy bears. If I have to pay for your gummy bears, sorry, no gummy bears. (Not that I’m trying to dismiss birth control as firvilous as ten punds of gummy bears is) ---
**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 14, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/95 "2011-11-14T23:25:37Z")
Good post, mostly agreeable. My argument is that the most famous Libertarians are frauds - I am not disparaging the LP as a whole. This position of mine is clearly won. The LP needs to rid itself of the infestation of Conservatism and we will all move to a better place. (directed to david42) ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/96 "2011-11-14T23:32:16Z")
What does Ron Paul think of the 14th Amendment? In the link above, he makes no mention of Justice O’Connor’s concurrence opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which stated that Texas’s sodomy law violated the equal protection clause. The 14th is explicitly binding on the states, but Ron Paul doesn’t seem to think so. State’s rights are fine and dandy, but they have limits – which are stated in the Constitution. Also, he complains about “legislating from the bench”, but that is inherent in the system of common law which the nation has had since its founding. Does Ron Paul think we should abandon common law and adopt a Napoleonic Code style civil law? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/97 "2011-11-14T23:43:52Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > Good post, mostly agreeable. My argument is that the most famous Libertarians are frauds - I am not disparaging the LP as a whole. This position of mine is clearly won. > (directed to david42) I’d say the only thing you have proved is that you really do not understand what Ron Paul is saying. You can at least acknowledge that Mr. Paul is not in favor of criminalized sodomy, it was in your own cite, fer cryin out loud. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/98 "2011-11-14T23:45:27Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > My argument is that the most famous Libertarians are frauds - I am not disparaging the LP as a whole. This position of mine is clearly won. So, you declared yourself the winner! Shall we ask the mods to close this thread now that you have “won” it? ---
**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 14, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/99 "2011-11-14T23:47:19Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I’d say the only thing you have proved is that you really do not understand what Ron Paul is saying. > > You can at least acknowledge that Mr. Paul is not in favor of criminalized sodomy, it was in your own cite, fer cryin out loud. Of course I don’t believe Mr. Paul favors sodomy. Its ridiculous to say such. I do believe he would endorse a state law that decriminalized it, however. ---
**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 15, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001/100 "2011-11-15T00:01:24Z")
> [@David42](#): > > And as far as a lot of things being described as Mr. paul being against, such as “birth control,” it is actually the federal funding of such issues that he’s against. He’s also against federal courts upholding peoples’ fourth amendment right to use birth control. He has introduced bills that would supposedly ban federal courts from hearing such cases, and which explicitly state that any precedent created by past court cases on that issue (and other issues) is voided. The only effect would be to re-empower states to make such laws. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-a-libertarian-be-opposed-to-the-right-to-privacy/602001.md?page=6)