『漫游』酷论坛>『海外生活』>[讨论]individual privacy Vs ..

[讨论]individual privacy Vs.societal welfare

jingwen@2004-09-29 06:09

Resolved: Individual claims of privacy ought to be valued above competing claims of societal welfare.

One writer observed, “In one sense, all human rights are aspects of the right to privacy.”United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis argued that privacy was the most cherished of freedoms in a democracy.A lot people said that giving up privacy or say liberty is required to gain safety or say societal welfare. But personally, I feel that giving up liberty sometimes does not bring the benefit - making the correct decision does. look what the US government did during the period of Red Scare, or take a look at the court of Salem witch trials, government didn't give supposed safety by intrusion on individual privacy.


feel free to debate over this issue:) :)
引用

Harmatia@2004-09-29 13:47

It's pretty meaningless to speak of these concepts in absolute terms because compromises are always needed. Without a concrete given situation or at least more clearly defined perimeters, this topic is rather empty.
引用

jingwen@2004-09-29 19:55

hoho,such an empty topic is the national LD debate topic this year, and u have to debate as both aff. and neg. everytime.
引用

霸王哆啦@2004-09-29 21:50

What if the so called personal privacy is apposed to"national security"and "social justness"?The problem is how to define the scope of "personal".
引用

Harmatia@2004-09-30 00:57

引用
最初由 jingwen 发布
hoho,such an empty topic is the national LD debate topic this year, and u have to debate as both aff. and neg. everytime.


That's why I never cared for the speech and debate team. :D
引用

emb422@2004-09-30 11:08

This sounds so much like a problem concerning the USA PATROIT Act of 2001, which, as far as I'm concerned, is one of the most offensive abuse of power that any government can ever do to its foundations... Personally freedom is something that should be cherished rather than condemned in the time of troubles because it is a voice that warns the public against the blinding and bounding force of nationalism and militarism under the disguise of "patriotism". A government, being formed by the public consensus or social contract, should only act within its limits of protecting the citizenry and not intruding the citizenry's freedom. I mean, even the "clear and present danger clause" should not be considered a proper excuse of such violation of that sacred contract--otherwise, the civil government itself can be nothing more than that heinous Leviathan... The dissenting voice against the government in time of crisis is often the voice of reason, as the average mass surrender themselves and their freedoms to the government for the "higher good of societal welfare"! How preposterous! Surely, the great societal welfare can indeed be achieved when the government continues to blend in the public sphere with the private sphere, as Jurgen Habermas stated in his Transformation of the Public Sphere. And, when the perfect harmony is achieved, what would be left of the society is a completely controlled world in a totalitarian regime... Yes, 1984 can be true! Telescreens, ministry of truth, Big Brother, and the brilliant slogan of "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" will be a part of our lives if we allow the government to go too far to "protect" us. As John Locke stated, perhaps when a government starts to abuse its power, it is our duty as voluntary signers of the social contract to disassociate ourselves with the civil government. The laws of nature don’t change. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be preserved. To give up freedom for the sake of "greater good" is ludicrous.
引用
| TOP