THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Privacy predates all semblance’s of government, thus situating privacy as one of the primal conditions of man over which government cannot or should not interfere. Instead, government should find as its major grace, the act of insuring and protecting its peoples’ privacy right.
Nonetheless, large governmental configurations tend to destroy the right to privacy despite the fact that original societies may have organized themselves for opposite the purpose—i.e., to insure privacy protection. Thus, people desiring that intruders from the outside, such as invaders or other tribes, not be allowed entry into their lives might organize militias of citizens to keep them out entirely or partially.
In order to keep the militias in order, these people may have organized longer term agreements which would tend to extend themselves so as to last between immediate emergencies and to insure that the collective privacy as well as the individual privacy of all its members would be forever protected against surprise attacks by outsiders.
The problem with agreements is that they tend to overstay their welcome and to intrude upon individual rights, especially when manipulative and clever persons take control of them either by additional agreements or by the original agreement. Thus an emergency gathering of persons to ensure safety for all members of a community might extend itself into an annual or permanent meeting(s) which might then be attended by all concerned or, if this became tiresome, by some persons appointed to act on behalf of the others. Here is where the rub usually comes.
Those persons who are appointed to serve in the place of the others automatically ascend to a higher station than those not so elevated to perform these tasks, and by gradualism, they may tend to assume powers that the others might not openly admit to giving them, thus losing more and more of their personal freedoms.
After awhile, one of the freedoms infringed upon by the persons in charge of an evolving tyranny of governance is inevitably the right to privacy which was the original reason for the cessation of individual action in favor of group action in the agreement itself. Years later, in these cases, the organization thus formed evolves to assume the aspect of the enemy itself and to enter the domain of the free man and to destroy whatever vestiges of privacy and the right to individual conduct which he originally gained by the mere fact of having been born.
Thus, the elites who assume higher and higher positions which are farther and farther removed from the free men whose forefathers organized a lose bond with others for survival of their freedoms and private lives, thus find themselves treated more and more like outsiders who are beyond the inner sanctum of the governing aristocrats who have cleverly made off with the top echelons of decision-making and used their positions to isolate and contain the yearnings of the groundlings who are eventually shut almost entirely out of their original agreements, except for having to pay for its continuance through taxation and to perform the drudgeries that the elites have decided will be necessary to prove their worthiness and membership rights.
Thus, as the governing body grows, the rights of man decline in proportion to the multiplication of the layers of separation of the burgeoning bureaucracies which begin to rest high above their expanding infrastructure. Eventually, these evolutions of power produce extremely expensive methods of accounting for their departmentalized specializations the more removed each layer becomes from the groundlings who are shut out of the decision-making process.
As these layers of separation ensue and grow, the government at certain points becomes suspicious of its citizens, because the wall of separation has become so high that the elites no longer have constant surveillance of the citizenry down below the establishment on which they rest their power. This natural paranoia begins to express itself in the development of reporting processes by which the rulers utilize spies to enter into the lives and lifestyles of their populace at large so they can learn of the ways and trends below them and thus stave off infringements of their authority by disgruntled outcasts below the structure of the government.
It is here that privacy and publicity meet.
In order for the governing princes to learn of threats from below in the form of unrest, civil war, or other forms of resistance to their authority, operatives are formed to spy out the people. Now, in the natural course of events, when the spying of government upon the people begins to rear its ugly head, the people have come full circle from the original bargaining chip upon which government was formed, as the government itself has now become the enemy from which the people once again require immediate protection. In other words, the wall of protection behind which the people are hidden has been breached by the self-grown inner enemy—i.e., government itself. The body politic has thus been poisoned by its own out-of-control and very paranoid rulers who become bent on securing and permanently maintaining their elitist rights over those of the others.
The intrusion of spies into their private lives in the form of police units as well as the form of unidentified and quiet agents who are hired and set among them to quietly observe them and report back, become dangerous elements in a once trusting social order. There is nothing within most systems to shelter the citizens from the tyrannical misuse of the information thus gathered, and, as laws can be promulgated from above at will, there is nothing to stop the rulers from using their power to make laws which might eventually cause the arrest, expulsion, imprisonment, torture, or death of the unsuspecting governee.
Once the privacy of citizens has been breached by governments, the game is over. The government has established supreme power as the enemy of the people when it peeks into privacy issues, yet to speak of this places the enemy of the government—i.e., the people--in jeopardy of more intense and dangerous scrutiny by the government’s lackeys.
In short, all agreements between people place them in danger of having created the exact monster—invasion of privacy and freedom of expression and lifestyle and association—which the government itself was set up to protect. Instead, the government crosses over and becomes the enemy, which intrudes and cannot be kept away, because it has already ensconced itself inside the walls of the city and extended its viselike tentacle around each member of the society.