an individual’s claims to privacy ought to be valued over competing claims of societal welfare
...cal catholic church many people with similar ideals were exiled or even put to death for them. However, since Luther was able to cultivate his ideas privately, organize them, and finally propose them in a manner which would grant him a large following he goes down in history as the first main critic of the Roman Catholic authority. Distinguished anthropologist, Sir James E. Stephens, responds to this and many similar situations by stating that “This gives us two very important bits of information: first, that undeveloped ideals cannot stand up to the overwhelming power of social norms; and second, that society will without hesitation remove ideals that contrast these norms.” Such a situation is not only unfavorable, but grossly throws off the balance of power criterion I mentioned and hence undermines a government’s integrity. My second point is that the devaluing of privacy is a precursor of marshal law. In order to maintain invasion of privacy, or any other institution, as a viable source societal welfare, the capabilities must always be greater then those of potential criminals. If we start by simply wiretapping phone lines, criminals will obviously develop methods to overcome this nuisance. In turn, the only thing the society could do to keep up with these individuals is take away more and more privacy leading to a scenario where every waking moment of our lives will be recorded and analyzed to determine whether or not we are a threat to societal welfare, marshal law. The society does, however, have a second choice; it can choose to halt the invasion of individual privacy, but this leads to an even more ironic situation. If this process stops before marshal law is achieved, then criminals advance to a point where we can no longer reach them and we end up in the same exact situation we are in now, except without privacy. Neither this circumstance, nor marshal law is anywhere near the definition of an integral government because, once again, the society becomes grossly overpowered. My final point is that privacy resides in the hands of the people. A legitimate government, as embodied in Locke’s, Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s Social Contracts, derives its power from the p...