Monday, August 15, 2005

There's no such thing as a right to privacy

This is a post directed at all the liberals, and the libertarians who believe in the concept of a right to privacy. Ignoring the Constitutional problems with such a claim, this is a philosophical and logical argument about the supposed right to privacy.

Follow my logic here: The right to privacy protects the right of individuals to engage in private consensual sexual relationships. The government has no business in the bedroom, as the saying goes.

Now, does “the right to privacy” also protect prostitution? (On a very random note, isn’t it odd how prostitution rhymes with Constitution.) Potentially, the only difference is the nature of the relationship in question. One involves the exchange of money for services, while the other involves a relationship of the so-called personal nature. The actions in question are the same.

So why is it that “the right to privacy” protects one sort of relationship, and not another? Why is privacy thrown out the window as soon as money is exchanged? Why is it that a romantic relationship should be free of government interference, but a personal business relationship demands the strictest of government scrutiny? Keep in mind that not only is prostitution illegal, but even if it was legal, it would be highly regulated and subject to federal tax laws.

Proponents of the right to privacy invoke the term in order to either protect specific behavior that is legal but controversial, or to strike down laws that restrict behavior that such proponents believe should be legal. A scant few ever mention privacy rights in order to protect all private behavior that doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s rights. The “right to privacy” protects consensual sex, but not drug use or prostitution because the entire concept only exists to protect specific behavior.

Conservative hypocrisy is always very easy to point out, but liberal hypocrisy can be a bit trickier. Conservatives are often times quite rightly accused of wanting to impose their moral values upon the population through the law. And it’s quite easy to recognize when the religious right and the Christian coalition are up to such nonsense. The problem with liberals is that they do the exact same thing. They may not be using religion, but they are still looking to impose a value system upon the population through the law.

So whether you oppose gay marriage, drugs, or prostitution through the legal system, ask yourself why your values should be imposed upon everyone else.

2 Comments:

Blogger Kerry said...

Maybe there's a reason why constitution rhymes with prostitution :)

I think I tend to agree that things you personally oppose should not be imposed upon everyone else.

-Kerry

2:04 AM  
Anonymous Larissa said...

Prostitution should be legal -- and regulated. Wouldn't the government be able to regulate it viz the commerce clause or something? (Forgive me if I'm wrong, I have Lofty for a prof, so I have no idea what's going on...)

9:41 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home