But that does not address the right of persons to live and die as they choose.
Just to be clear, if someone decides to die for a good reason, like when there is only 1 year to live and they will have a painful and uncomfortable life. I just wanted to give my examples to show it is hard to make it an absolute.
I feel we are largely in agreement generally regarding state power, and that merely my arrogance caused you to desire to encourage me to limit my statements to those less grandiose and conceited.
yes, I do think we would largely agree on todays problems and most likely even on many solutions. However it is no just that I want to dumb down political and philosophical debates in general, to make them more accessible, but I also think we often are hypocritical without noticing. Saying "there should be no laws other than those that directly protect live and property" on the other hand we say "Everything (Or at least money) has to be transparent". Do you see the contradiction?
There are many people who actually do not want to be transparent and I actually dislike all the talk about Orwell, because he is the reason why people love to get hysterical when talking about transparency vs privacy.
I am a very private person. I have no desire to be famous, don't take selfies, and have no wish to be surveilled. There still isn't a damn thing I can do about technology making it possible. In fact, whether we like it or not, that technology will continue to develop, and the depth and breadth of surveillance will continue to expand for the foreseeable future.
As surveillance technology keeps improving, becoming smaller, and cheaper, it will become less and less avoidable for even those most able to purchase privacy, until there is no place to hide anymore.
Whether we want it or not, the physics of the universe dictate what technology can be, and there's no off switch to development. Transparency won't require legislation, because eventually secrets won't be possible.
So, I don't really see a conflict, in the fullness of time, between the strictest voluntarism and total transparency.
I do get your point, that all too often folks claim one thing, and then do another, like add laws they think are super important. I reckon we all short out somewhere. We're just animals, after all, and the amazing complexity of society and civilization is beyond anyone's comprehension.
Sometimes it's a victory just to point the right end of the beer at the right part of my face.
Edit: Which brings us back to @dwinblood's thesis regarding data preservation. As we adopt open blockchain technology, it is likely to contribute greatly to the transparency of society that is looming.
I actually have a very similar standpoint being: It is impossible to block the surveillance of the privat person. The Internet and especially social media make it almost impossible to revert the current 1984-esque world. That is why I personally do not care much about "privacy".
However if we as citiziens are transparent at least everything that is public (everything that the state does) should be transparent as well. Them not showing the full G20 conference made me really mad.
I see a little hypocricy in stating "We do not want to force people" and "We do want the state to be transparent" and I have yet to found a solution to this contradictions.
I want to mention two things:
Confucianism is a 2500 old libertarian movement at it's core
"Confucius taught that when societies operate under laws, people are punished by authorities after having committed illegal activities. People generally conform to the laws, often without necessarily understanding the rationale behind them. He promoted a different way: to internalize behaviors so that actions are controlled beforehand. People then behave properly because they wish to avoid feeling shame and want to avoid losing face. In theory, the result is a reduction in the number of coercive laws required for smooth functioning of the society"
-www.religioustolerance.org on the teachings of confucianism
The Libertarian Peter Thiel is against transparency. I have yet to search for his extensive reasoning on that, but I think I know where he is coming from.
Well, yeah!
But government isn't people, it's an agreement. When people undertake to work in public service, their employer - theoretically the public - should be expected to be able to access their communications and work product, just like any other employer.
There's not much we can do to contrive to save personal privacy. The tech just doesn't allow it. This same force of history is going to make government transparent, whether they want it or not.
Good.
Edit: figgering out proper quoting
I agree, but what if people have a volunteeric agreement with their government (Libertarian Utopia, because right now the agreement is forced) and they do not include complete transparency for the gov, wouldn't it still be Libertarian?
I am for complete transparency, because I find stalking rather flattering instead of dangerous and I do not have things that I really need to hide, but I think this is necessarily a Libertarian idea.
The following made me really mad at the people who "interviewed" Thiel
As I stated, opacity in government is even more temporary than government. The irrepressible progress of surveillance technology, which includes open blockchain, cameras, data harvesting, and all of it, is potentiating surveillance by the public, not only of the public.
While the full range of political positions includes a substantial percentage of people who are most comfortable following leaders, there are yet sufficient folks to use advances in technology that potentiate watching the watchers, and enough others that will throw support their way when they turn up dirt, that those advances will effectively erode government secrecy.
Operation Mockingbird is becoming useless as Wikileaks, a vast complex of citizen journalists, and ever more potent whistle blowers replace the wholly owned media.
Recently I discussed using Wickr with a close associate, but they said they weren't interested in resisting surveillance, because they thought is was the last desperate attempt of TPTB to retain control - and they wanted them to cling to that illusion as long as possible, because that would prevent them from doing even more dire things.
It took me a few minutes, but I had to agree with them.
I actually used to 100% agree with complete transparency, but talking about it in detail made me realize that if only one person does not want to have everything about their lives to open on the blockchain, then we would also force people to abide our rules.
Personally I really do not care much. I have clearly stated on Steemit with my clear name that I would welcome a coup d'etat, which could make me a target for the german secret service. Just so they don't miss it, I actually applied to work in the IT of the Bundesverfassungsschutz and linked them my Steemit account in my application :3.
They should try to harm me for my opinions and see what happens, it would give our course so much more power. I don't want to be a Martyr , but the concept alone is protecting my ass at this point.
I hope that you are right. I believe this to be a natural development as well, but I do not want to praise the day before evening started and get complacent.
I love that saying. I've never heard it before. It is without doubt consideration I should better undertake.
I wish bad press might better restrain the USG. Just as the Stasi turned citizens into their informants, the USG, or more correctly, the local authorities do much the same, and even astroturf their way to a separation from nefarious activities being under the controls limiting government.
If a Sheriff's Deputy pulls you over, you have (usually) some expectation of legal protections. This is not so if you are forced to stop by an ostensibly private citizen, who is connected to governmental bureaucracies through their being a snitch.
I have run into this problem more than once, and government is insulated from press regarding the actions of their agent, while the agent is above the law, due to their connections.
I am still healing from the last discussion I had with a person that revealed they had access to my medical records (which government is supposedly prevented from accessing without a warrant), has previously openly assaulted me in broad daylight in front of witnesses (including my son), and despite the extensive injury, and the direct claim of responsibility by the thug, there has been no sanction, or even any charge, whatsoever.
Because government isn't officially responsible for this conduct, yet fully invests it's power in the person that is, my only recourse is to my own network.
I can't compete.
I expect that , given my refusal to comply with demands delivered with fist (and my demonstration of willingness to back up my words at our last 'discussion') the next meeting will involve escalation. The threat has been repeated, and I do not doubt they are personally willing to carry it out.
I believe that they are being restrained only because their handlers prefer not to be potentially exposed, which is a likely consequence of my death.
So transparency has effect at present, yet not enough to entirely prevent my physical and legal abuse by a party whose connection to government remains cryptic. The money (snitches typically sell drugs, and it isn't widely understood that their handlers partake of that money) is at risk if my death strongly motivates investigation that could shine light on the actions of these thugs, and like cockroaches, they can only thrive in darkness.