Hacker News Reader

I don't see why people of a different religion need privacy either, we should make a list of them so that I can ensure that I am not living near anyone who might have different values. /s

If yours is a sincerely held view, I think you need to take some time and meet new people.

Are you saying that you would like for bad things to happen to firearms owners at any cost, including their firearms being distributed to thieves for nefarious use?

In other words, you aren't trying to solve a social issue, you're trying to punish your ideological enemies?

Some of the people on the list are victims of stalkers and domestic violence.

Everybody on the list deserved better data handling practices from the CA DOJ, regardless of any political posturing.

Neither would I you. Perhaps a peaceful separation is best.

Because everyone deserves privacy?

Do they? We're currently entering an era of strict Constitutional textualism, and a right to privacy is mentioned nowhere in it. If women don't have a right to privacy regarding their own bodies, why should gun owners get to keep their guns secret?

>"If women don't have a right to privacy regarding their own bodies, why should gun owners get to keep their guns secret?"

This isn't a zero sum game. To lose a right to privacy somewhere doesn't mean it deserves to be lost everywhere. If you are upset that privacy is being violated you shouldn't be happy this happened.

As your example amply illustrates, “deserves” is not the same as “is directly Constitutionally protected”.

Unless, of course, they want to get a medical procedure. (Because you somehow don't have an inalienable right to body autonomy, but you do have the inalienable right to own a gun.)

If you murder someone in private, your right to privacy doesn't protect you from murder charges. The same logic is being used with abortion laws, your euphemizing it as "a medical procedure" notwithstanding.

Nobody else is entitled to occupy space in, or take nourishment from my body. It's their problem if they can't survive outside of it.

Just like it's not murder to refuse to have your organs transplanted to save a life, because of your right to body autonomy, it's not murder to evict someone living inside it. Refusing help to someone isn't murder, even in a life-or-death situation - and if it were, I've got a long list of impositions for you.

>Nobody else is entitled to occupy space in, or take nourishment from my body.

If you have a newborn baby and refuse to feed them and they die, you'll be tried for murder. The baby being inside or outside of the body doesn't change the responsibility the mother has to it.

The mother can give up that child any time she wants. Nobody's forcing her to take on those responsibilities. If the child fails to survive as a ward of the state, it's no longer her problem. The child doesn't have the right to make this imposition on anyone in particular, whether via money, or via blood.

Speaking of blood, I need a kidney, you have two. Can we cut you open against your will, and take one, for my use? I'll die without one. Surely, my right to life is more important then your right to your own person. After all, that right isn't enumerated anywhere in the constitution...

Maybe we should have public voting so people can know who they live next to. Why do voters deserve privacy?

they didn’t break any laws, why shouldn’t they?

Also, there is no lack of historic precedent when one group not willing to live next to the other. How are you different?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com