Suchergebnisse

In spite of the euphoria over the 2006 Democratic victory, the author investigates the Democratic Party to argue it has a record of complicity, not opposition. A review of important decisions passed overwhelmingly in Congress in the past six years identifies consensus on the imperial presidency, Terri Schiavo, The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act of 2006, increased immigration control & the border fence, & funding of the Iraq war. Interpretation of this bipartisan consensus identifies a commitment to "free market" economics, a drive towards world hegemony, support for a bloated military establishment, & a shamanistic concept of American exceptionalism. Transformation of the Democratic Party is related to efforts by the Green party, the Tikkun Community & Network of Spiritual Progressives, & organized labor & the religious right, & is concluded to need mass Democratic organizations to develop a new politics to fight against America's political elites. J. Harwell

The definition above nicely encapsulates two of the intertwined meanings of 'privacy'. In the first sense—physical seclusion—the level of privacy in modern developed societies is extraordinarily high by historical standards. We take it for granted that a bed in a hotel will be occupied by either one person or a couple—not by several strangers. At home, few of us expect to share either bed or bedroom with our children. In these and a variety of other ways, increased physical privacy has come as a byproduct of increased wealth.

A major theme in discussions of the influence of technology on society has been the computer as a threat to privacy. It now appears that the truth is precisely the opposite. Three technologies associated with computers—public-key encryption, networking, and virtual reality—are in the process of giving us a level of privacy never known before. The U.S. government is currently intervening in an attempt, not to protect privacy, but to prevent it.

In thinking and talking about rights, including property rights, it seems natural to put the argument in either moral or legal terms. From the former viewpoint, rights are part of a description of what actions are right or wrong. The fact that I have a right to do something is an argument, although not necessarily a sufficient argument, that someone who prevents me from doing it is acting wrongly.