Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 04:11 PM 1/14/96 -0800, Rich Graves wrote:

>> >Everybody deserves privacy: criminals,
>> 
>> I agree, to the extent that an unconvicted person who happens to be a
>> criminal is also an ordinary citizen.
>> 
>> > government employees,
>> 
>> I _Disagree_, especially after they've committed crimes for the government.
>
>I find it difficult to equate the actions of a volunteer grand juror
>(which is what we were originally discussing before your knee started
>jerking so wildly)

Are your political biases affecting your misinterpretation of my commentary? 
 A "volunteer grand juror" (is there really such a thing?!?) is not really 
an "employee of government."  ("Slave" is perhaps a more accurate 
terminology, especially if these people are unpaid and aren't really 
volunteers.)

What _I_ meant was that government employees deserve NO privacy, if for no 
other reason than that they've accepted tax dollars stolen from taxpayers.


> or IRS auditor with those of Mengele.

Ah!  A comparison that has MUCH more validity!

> I am aware that
>some so-called

"so-called"?  What do you mean, "so-called"?  

> libertarian leaders

"Libertarian leaders"?  _LEADERS_?  I'm a libertarian, and I have been one 
in name for 20 years, and I've never followed a "libertarian leader."  I 
don't even know if I could NAME a "libertarian leader." Maybe you're 
thinking of fascism, or communism, so some such movement that 
REQUIRES "leaders."


> accuse the IRS of crimes against humanity, 

Here's a question for you:  Is theft a "crime against humanity"?   It may be 
a crime against an individual citizen, but "against humanity"?  Is murder a 
"crime against humanity"?  Again, it may be a crime against one citizen, but 
"against humanity"?


Here's a CLUE, because you obviously need it so badly:  It isn't necessary 
for an act to be a "crime against humanity" to be a serious crime.  It 
sounds like you're trying to defend abusive government employees by setting 
up a "straw-man"-type argument:  Unless what they do is a "crime against 
humanity," everything's okay and they should be immune from retribution.  By 
this reasoning, merely threatening one individual with prosecution isn't a 
"crime against humanity" so they get to go home, safe and sound.

I disagree.  In spades.

>but I think they're demagogic idiots. 

Your political philosophy is showing.

>See the non-libertarian
>FAQ, at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Sounds like it would be extraordinarily un-interesting.  


[deleted]

>Where we differ is that I think it's bad taste and bad ethics to invade
>anyone's privacy. It's a question of "justifiable force" for me. I believe
>just about everyone with any technical understanding who reads this list
>has similar ethics. 
>
>I don't post private email. I don't investigate politicians' home phone
>numbers and past relationships. It's just not relevant, unless there's 
>specific probable cause.

If  your philosophy is that people who have gotten away with crimes in the 
past should escape punishment, you are exercising a "consistent" philosophy, 
albeit one with which I will never agree.  More likely, however, you are 
just excusing the actions of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND POLITICIANS, in 
particular, and trying to dress it up as simply a matter of general privacy.  


>The threat of investigation is valid, and has a positive deterrent effect.

But it won't have a "positive deterrent effect" if it never happens.   With 
respect to this case, those who investigated and harassed Zimmermann, it 
MUST occur.

>But no one should have to live under the assumption that she has no
>privacy at all. 

In my opinion, nobody should have his property stolen by government action, 
and those who do it are thieves and should face harsh punishment.  If "your" 
government does this, and you tolerate it, YOU are part of the problem.