Privacy is a courtesy, not a right. This has been a conviction of mine for quite sometime because there are so many "bad things" that happen to society when privacy is elevated to righthood. This right has been inferred by the courts from various clauses in the Bill of Rights, but I believe that it has been inferred incorrectly. The correct definition for the right inferred is modesty, not privacy. Let's review some of the problems with privacy and then finish by looking at the benefits of modesty.
Reduced Accountability
Privacy diminishes our society's ability to help each other stay true to the rule of law, to our commitments, and to our own convictions. For example, in Puritan society, it was considered reasonable to break into neighbor's house if you heard strange noises and suspected something bad was happening. If you discovered a man beating his wife you were fully in your rights to stop him, arrest him, and testify against him. In today's society, chances are pretty good that such a case would be thrown out because of the right to privacy.
Divorce rates are high and single-parent families are not unusual. Because of privacy it is very difficult for a person's friends to help him stay true to his oath to "have and to hold, for better or worse, until death do you part." This is a shame. Some have said that marriages fall apart more today because we're a more honest society in that we don't hide what's happened. I see it the other way: we're a bunch of liars no longer held in check by our friends and neighbors ernestly looking for our own best interest.
Finally, it's difficult to even hold each other accountable to our convictions. If we can't really help each other in these big ways, the little ways become all the more difficult. Our society has decided that privacy is one of the things required to maintain rugged individualism. This individualism has come at a cost in that more and more people stand alone against their problems and don't have a support group around them to help. Our society looks down on any such support group as a "crutch" rather than seeing it as a vital necessity to maintaining our own well-being.
Diminished Sovereignty
Privacy diminishes the sovereignty of the United States. The government can no longer enforce all of it's laws in private situations. This implies that a greater amount of anarchy is present where privacy rules. It's not difficult to imagine the ultimate conclusion whereby individuals establish private property and, essentially, operate their own governance of that property independent from the United States. This might sound alright for an individual, but what about corporations? How many people really want a corporation to have the right to establish their own laws on their own land.
The government's laws should be enforced everywhere, regardless of whether it happened in the privacy of one's own home, land, or whatever.
Legalized Crime
Privacy has been used to legalize sodomy. Formerly, sodomy was considered a crime and is now considered (in some states) a legal practice among consenting adults. I could apply the slippery slope argument here to ask what prevents this from legalizing child pornogrphy, child molestation, rape, or murder.
One might say that the "consenting adults" bit protects these from happening. However, I suggest that these things are already happening in a quasi-legal way because of the diminished sovereignty and reduced accountability. For example, in my own state, Kansas, we recently elected Paul Morrison to Attorney General on the basis of his claim that the previous AG, Phil Kline, wanted access to "private medical records." The reality was that Phil Kline was trying to protect children being molested by their parents. He was trying to get those medical records so that child molesters who forced their children to get abortions to protect themselves from criminal action could be prosecuted. The medical records would show which parents had forced their children to do this.
These are atrocities happening in our own society with impunity because of the elevation of privacy to righthood.
Modesty is a right
On the other hand, limited privacy is of benefit to a free society. I refer to this as modesty. Modesty is that which allows people to mutually respect one another because we gloss over differences that might otherwise elevate us above or below our peers. When we dress modestly, we hide how much better or worse we look than others. When we act modestly in explaining our skills, salary, or talents we keep from mocking others by making them feel less capable or prevent them from denegrating ourselves if they are more capable. Modesty is the buffer we place around ourselves in order to promote mutual respect.
This is something that requires a few legal boundaries to enforce. Modesty is something that can be taken away if your salary is published in the newspaper or if cameras are placed in bathrooms. These things should be protected. But modest stops far short of privacy. Breaking and entering is violating your modesty and is an abuse of your right to own land, not a violation of your privacy.
Basically, privacy takes this too far and has many negative side-effects. I would like to see society back off on the desire for privacy for it's own benefit. Unfortunately, I don't predict this happening any time soon.
Cheers.
Privacy is a Prerequisite to Modesty
This is really bad rationale!
If you discovered a man beating his wife you were fully in your rights to stop him, arrest him, and testify against him. In today's society, chances are pretty good that such a case would be thrown out because of the right to privacy.
Totally false. You just can't use undo force because usually (and very sadly) the wife doesn't want to press charges and hasn't authorized you to act on her behalf. Even then, a jury would still almost certainly rule in the activists favor. You can definitely break into someone's home if you have
Because of privacy it is very difficult for a person's friends to help him stay true to his oath to "have and to hold, for better or worse, until death do you part."
This doesn't have anything to do with the legal sense of privacy (which is strongly implied by the discussion). A person can always just not be forthcoming with their life to friends, it's not like they can force him to divulge anything.
I see it the other way: we're a bunch of liars no longer held in check by our friends and neighbors ernestly looking for our own best interest.
While this may be true, I think the truth behind the sad decline of the "institution of marriage" in our culture is much more complicated than that. Marriage just doesn't mean the same thing it did before, regardless of what vows are repeated from a sense of traditionalism.
Also the times have changed and people are much more independent and free from the strong moralistic constraints of previous societies. For better or for worse, you can't put a "stigma" on a person like you used to, they can just leave as far as they need to leave to escape it. Social stigma is strongly linked to geography.
And even less intrinsically, people just live longer than they used to. Some couples are together 20 years, are unhappy, and then divorce to live out the remaining 40 years of their life in a new way. Previously they would be near death by then and wouldn't have any reason to seek to better their lives.
I think that it is certainly possible to have an honest society that values marriage less. Which is more honest? Uphold a vow of marriage despite a life of misery, or to just say, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake." It seems more honest in some cases to just own up.
Importantly, I think you're making an incorrect link between honesty and privacy. I think that it sucks that some members of our society value honesty so little, but we have less privacy now than we ever have before. Think the church or nitting circle used to be bad, see how fast news flies on facebook or IM! My roommate was just engaged last week on a cruise in the bahamas and his sister in Los Angeles found out about it before he even got off the boat... without him telling her!
Regardless of the legal issues regarding privacy, a support structure is completely feasible. Your concerns about failed social support systems are more about personal openness and honesty with one's friends/church/peers/family than about privacy. Even with the right to privacy, people can choose to open their lives.
The government's laws should be enforced everywhere, regardless of whether it happened in the privacy of one's own home, land, or whatever.
This is gross. This would make sense... except the vast majority of all laws are bullshit. God got his laws laid down a thousand years ago (even with revisions!) and they still apply perfectly today. Our government generates an encyclopedia of laws every year, most of them just thievery, lies, and destruction. We need privacy to protect ourself from the idiocy that has been enshrined in law.
Privacy has been used to legalize sodomy. Formerly, sodomy was considered a crime and is now considered (in some states) a legal practice among consenting adults. I could apply the slippery slope argument here to ask what prevents this from legalizing child pornogrphy, child molestation, rape, or murder.
No, changing morality legalized sodomy. The laws are not enforced evenly because if they were there would be huge backlash from the majority of the public. However, instead of revoking these laws the legislators leave them on the books so they can be selectively used to add additional punishment to those in the minority. Enforce sodomy laws on a married couple in their home and face the wrath of the public; enforce sodomy laws on a 16 and 17 year old and parents of the community rejoice. It's just an way to pander. (Sodomy includes a number of completely social acceptable practices along with the offensive practices it also includes. Oral sex between married adults is in the same category as bestiality.)
Modesty is something that can be taken away if your salary is published in the newspaper or if cameras are placed in bathrooms.
This is exactly the kind of thing that legal privacy is necessary for. Without legal privacy you modesty will be destroyed.
It seems that you've renamed "privacy" to "modesty" and then renamed "lying and two-facedness" to "privacy". I wholeheartedly agree that we are having an ethical crisis in our society. Honesty is one of the most important qualities of an individual, and as a culture we are valuing it less. Adultry is probably one of the offensive forms of dishonesty and our culture (especially our pop-culture, ala Paris Hilton and crew) are trying to make it "no big deal", when it is a very big deal.
But by removing the right to privacy, you're putting the nation's "modesty" in the hands of the very least honest and most culturally destructive people in our society, the political elite. The right to privacy is important, individuals using it as an excuse are just as weak as the excuse is. Our society needs to vigorously defend our privacy as it is one of the few safeguards protecting us from a defective government. Remove privacy and the last resort will be violence.