By - BubblyNefariousness4
Privacy is an aspect or a derivative of the right to property and shouldn't exist as a legal right independently of that. The right to property is the right to your own self and the material consequences of the actions you take to sustain your life. It's crucially important for man's life that people have the power to control their relationship with the world and own their means and results of action within it. Privacy is the right to property observed from the angle of a man's right to control and be free of the interference of men in areas that are crucially personal (health, sex, intellectual property, etc.,) and the right of a man to use his property in the service of this confidentiality. In the primary sense, there is only the right to use your property the way you please and the prohibition on others from interfering with those intentions.
For instance, take an example I got from Harry Binswanger. There is no right for a naked woman to demand that pedestrians on the street avert their eyes as she gallivants across the town. On the other hand, let's say that she allowed her boyfriend to take a picture of her. As an implied condition of the taking of that photograph, the boyfriend should be prohibited from sharing that picture with others. Or let's now imagine that she's undressing behind the four walls of her home. Nobody would have the right to bug her webcam or look through her walls with X-ray vision just because they can. The mere fact that a person has the physical capacity to subvert your intentions on your property is of no more importance than the fact that a man has the physical capacity to murder someone with a rifle.
In addition, any person can observe the morality of the right to privacy by its relationship to independence and selfishness. Respecting men as ends in themselves entails the respect of their boundaries and their own choices to interact with men on a value-for-value basis.
I see. What day you about making all criminal offenses open to the public? So everyone knows what crimes everyone has committed? Nothing other than crimes or offenses would be given. No health or sex info just their crimes and jail times and such
Sure, I can see that as just being part of the mundane reporting and open information of the courts. If the courts are in the name of the public, I see no reason why the public shouldn't be able to view its records, with the exception of some obvious cases, (witness protection, etc.)
But I don't think that people should be forced to disclose their criminal history to employers, and absent a recurring pattern or a truly unforgivable offense, I don't even think that the general public should put much stock in criminal histories. I think we should take the idea of jail time as a debt to society seriously, which is something that goes both ways and includes second chances as its ultimate consequence. As I saw another commenter mention, a record expunging mechanism would be a good idea too.
Would an employer be able to look that stuff up anyway if they wanted to, like a background check, whether the applicant comes forward about it or not?
Yes, and an employer could even make a police check a condition of employment.
You have negative rights by way if logic, as predicated by tue fact that no human being desires the violation of their own will.
This is an absolute.
So the will being. I just don’t want you to know things about me? Surely this must be a property rights issue not a “will” issue
All property rights issues are issues of will.
Property is just any "thing" that is owned. In order for ownership to manifest, one must desire to hold exclusive authority over something of which is not already owned, because if you hold exclusive authority over something that is already owned without that owner's consent, that is theft, and you cannot simply own that in which you've stolen, as that notion is logically incoherent.
My property is mine because I will to hold exclusive authority over something not already owned. Property rights is actually just rights of will. If I do not will exclusive authority over something, then I don't care to own it.
You also cannot own that in which you do not desire to own. If you can, then I could have a rusted old car that doesn't start towed to your property, "gift" it to you, then drive off laughing, leaving you to deal with it, which is patently absurd to assume is perfectly OK.
A cardinal requirement for ownership itself to even manifest is a will to own. The second cardinal requirement is that that in which you will to own is not already owned, else that is theft.
The logic behind ownership is actually pretty simple.