by Peter Brock Ii

Created on: October 29, 2008

Privacy is not liberty. Yes, there are things which can and should be done in private and most of those things can be done in private. However, Mark Levin said it best when he claimed the reason we don't have a "right to privacy" in our Constitution was because people conspire to commit crimes in private. That is the best explanation possible.

Privacy is a luxury, not an inalienable right. We benefit from nice, spacious homes with different rooms for every one. We have simply grown accustomed to having our own space so we feel privacy should never be denied to us. That couldn't be more fundamentally wrong. It breaks down the nucleus of the family when privacy becomes the motive for kids to feel they shouldn't share with their parents what is going on in their lives. Consequently, it hurts heritage, tradition, and the bond that develops in wholesome families. Privacy in liberty is a distortion of it.

The right to privacy has its good intentions. But, so does the path to hell. People can feel at liberty to worship, discuss, and teach, without the worries of an over-bearing governmentwhen in the privacy of their own home. However, our great country allows for that anywhere. It's not necessary to hide it in privacy. In fact, if one must keep it private it is not a testament to that person's exercise of liberty, but a reason to scrutinize.

The idea of a "right to privacy" isn't found in our Bill of Rights. It is created by several of them. This is an obvious manipulation of the system. If the public truly thought this should be a legitimate right, then the Constitution would be amended. It was for every other major change-the abolitionof slavery, and women's right to vote to name two of the twenty-seven. This invention was created after issues of homosexuality emerged and people felt their household activities were protected. The problem is, the issue was missed in both cases. The constitutionality of such laws forbidding such acts has nothing to do with privacy. The whole ordeal should have been settled by the state governments. If the outcome was unfavorable to those involved, they could move to another one of the forty-nine other states. This should ring especially true for those who fear government is out to take over our every day lives. That is exactly why we have a federalist system.

The link between liberty and privacy is this: privacy is not one of our basic liberties, and thus there is no link. They run along different parallels and should not meet. What one does in the privacy of his or her home is one's business. That does not mean anything may be done. If we are going to live in a virtuous, benevolent community, then the laws must be obeyed and when they are in dispute the legislators can be contacted. Otherwise, to follow Levin's argument, we should be glad to live in a society where people can't get together and plan to commit heinous acts against others.

Learn more about this author, Peter Brock Ii.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.