25 ms·

Regulations on private economic interaction says that I can't give you a ride for money, or vice versa. It's restricting totally private action between two cons

Regulations on private economic interaction says that I can't give you a ride for money, or vice versa. It's restricting totally private action between two consenting adults. I don't see a ban on private communication being fundamentally more immoral. Taxes on income, rather than say natural resource consumption, means requiring a person to disclose their private transactions to the state under penalty of imprisonment. I'm not sure why you're not seeing the parallels between this and banning private conversations.

redy 9y ago
It's because there is no meaningful parallel. Conversations are not economic transactions. Period. You can try to stretch analogies ("walking is illegal because of traffic lights!1") but that's stupid and unhelpful. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to private communications. This is the problem. Period. The 4th amendment was sacrificed during the anti-drug/anti-black eighties. Right now the moment information leaves your home -- whether its a phone call or a letter or a bitcoin transaction -- the government has the right to intercept that. They don't even need a warrant in practice. It's going to require a Constitutional amendment, really a new 4th amendment, that will clearly and unambiguously extend privacy to a person's communication and data. Complaining about taxes on barter isn't going to help and is nothing but distraction.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  Of course they're different: private communications are not economic interactions, but both are private interactions between mutually consenting parties. So there are parallels. That people choose to deny any link is not surprising. Like I said, society has accepted these classes of restrictions on private interaction, and that means it will be very hard to make a coherent argument against prohibiting private communication. Such arguments will be hobbled by arbitrary judgments that this private interaction ought to be free from interference, invasion or censor, while this other private interaction should not. Cognitive dissonance will make a concerted push against prohibitions on private communication difficult. As for the US Constitution, that only relates to the US. The global question will be decided by the majority's perception of the morality of right to privacy and autonomy.
rorykoehler 9y ago
Regulating Uber and Airbnb is BS protectionism. Regulating companies to stop pollution is essential and I support it wholeheartedly. Tax is a different subject and I agree the way the system works now is suboptimal however paying tax is an important part of maintaining a healthy and functioning society. Banning private conversation however is not beneficial to individuals or society. There is no reason anyone would suggest this approach unless they were planning to exploit it in a nefarious fashion. I would much prefer to live in a world with some terrorism that can be dealt with through education, improved foreign policies and opportunities for all than a dystopian world with no private conversations.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  Pollution is not a private interaction between consenting parties. It's a negative externality, that is morally in the same class of behaviors as theft and assault. I was referring specifically to laws prohibiting the former. As for your justification for taxes on private income, it's the same argument that mass surveillance advocates make for prohibiting encryption that doesn't let the state see private communications. You've both accepted the right of the state to limit people's privacy. You're just bargaining over when the ends justify the means.
  - rorykoehler 9y ago
    I'd rather live in a stateless society too however it's all I've ever known. That's not the case for private communication and to be fair banned private communication makes changing the status quo practically impossible. It sits on a layer above everything else.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      To clarify: I'm not advocating for a stateless society. I'm advocating for the right to personal autonomy and privacy. That means ending taxes on private transactions, not all taxes.
CamperBob2 9y ago
I don't see a ban on private communication being fundamentally more immoral. In the US it would be, since one is Constitutionally protected and the other isn't. That doesn't mean we can let our guard down, of course. And our First Amendment and Fourth Amendment are no help to the Australian people at all, sadly. They will have to stand up for themselves on this one, and I hope they do.

redy 9y ago

It's because there is no meaningful parallel. Conversations are not economic transactions. Period. You can try to stretch analogies ("walking is illegal because of traffic lights!1") but that's stupid and unhelpful. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to private communications. This is the problem. Period. The 4th amendment was sacrificed during the anti-drug/anti-black eighties. Right now the moment information leaves your home -- whether its a phone call or a letter or a bitcoin transaction -- the government has the right to intercept that. They don't even need a warrant in practice. It's going to require a Constitutional amendment, really a new 4th amendment, that will clearly and unambiguously extend privacy to a person's communication and data. Complaining about taxes on barter isn't going to help and is nothing but distraction.

Jabanga 9y ago
Of course they're different: private communications are not economic interactions, but both are private interactions between mutually consenting parties. So there are parallels. That people choose to deny any link is not surprising. Like I said, society has accepted these classes of restrictions on private interaction, and that means it will be very hard to make a coherent argument against prohibiting private communication. Such arguments will be hobbled by arbitrary judgments that this private interaction ought to be free from interference, invasion or censor, while this other private interaction should not. Cognitive dissonance will make a concerted push against prohibitions on private communication difficult. As for the US Constitution, that only relates to the US. The global question will be decided by the majority's perception of the morality of right to privacy and autonomy.

rorykoehler 9y ago

Regulating Uber and Airbnb is BS protectionism. Regulating companies to stop pollution is essential and I support it wholeheartedly. Tax is a different subject and I agree the way the system works now is suboptimal however paying tax is an important part of maintaining a healthy and functioning society. Banning private conversation however is not beneficial to individuals or society. There is no reason anyone would suggest this approach unless they were planning to exploit it in a nefarious fashion. I would much prefer to live in a world with some terrorism that can be dealt with through education, improved foreign policies and opportunities for all than a dystopian world with no private conversations.

Jabanga 9y ago
Pollution is not a private interaction between consenting parties. It's a negative externality, that is morally in the same class of behaviors as theft and assault. I was referring specifically to laws prohibiting the former. As for your justification for taxes on private income, it's the same argument that mass surveillance advocates make for prohibiting encryption that doesn't let the state see private communications. You've both accepted the right of the state to limit people's privacy. You're just bargaining over when the ends justify the means.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  I'd rather live in a stateless society too however it's all I've ever known. That's not the case for private communication and to be fair banned private communication makes changing the status quo practically impossible. It sits on a layer above everything else.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    To clarify: I'm not advocating for a stateless society. I'm advocating for the right to personal autonomy and privacy. That means ending taxes on private transactions, not all taxes.

CamperBob2 9y ago

I don't see a ban on private communication being fundamentally more immoral. In the US it would be, since one is Constitutionally protected and the other isn't. That doesn't mean we can let our guard down, of course. And our First Amendment and Fourth Amendment are no help to the Australian people at all, sadly. They will have to stand up for themselves on this one, and I hope they do.