The debate "Societal welfare should preside over privacy" was started by
June 21, 2015, 10:25 pm.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PsychDave posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
I_Voyager posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
ChonCunningham, invincible_01, PsychDave, amanofprogress, BernieSanders4pres, Trance and 6 visitors agree.
I_Voyager, Quantum, musejay1 and 7 visitors disagree.
I agree within boundaries. I do not believe the government should tap every phone and read every email or text, but pretty much everyone is willing to sacrifice some privacy for safety. Without it, the police couldn't enter any private residence without permission, wiretaps would not be allowed for any reason and no investigation could ever progress unless people honestly confessed to crimes. We allow search warrants so that police can invade someone's privacy once they have sufficient cause to do so. Wiretaps should be the same. They should be permitted only when the police have good reason, and there should always be oversight to prevent abuse.
I think most people agree that privacy should not be absolute when faced with a good reason for it not to be, but we draw the line in different places for what constitutes a good reason.
I would rather be in a little danger and as free as I reasonably could be. I mean, societal welfare is not an object easily built. Sometimes what is best for a population is to ride the waves of its own humanity. The best we can do is set up better informing networks, keep open channels for money to flow from the altruist to the needy and without coercion or institutionalized force let the informed citizenry take their shape.