Edward Snowden revealed in 2013 that the NSA was conducting widespread surveillance on American citizens, collecting phone metadata, text messages, and internet communications through programs like PRISM without individualized warrants or public oversight. These disclosures exposed the extent of government intrusion into private communications, violating constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment and prompting debates over privacy and due process.
John Locke’s law of reason (natural law) refers to a universal moral code discoverable through rational thought, guiding individuals towards understanding principles of justice, cooperation, and self-preservation. It’s essentially a natural law accessible to all capable of logical reasoning, independent of divine revelation or societal dictates.
Inherent natural rights are discovered through the use of reason that individuals, as rational and autonomous beings, possess entitlements to life, liberty, and property essential for their self-realization and flourishing. Through logical and principled reflection on human nature and the requirements for voluntary, non-coercive interactions, reason identifies these rights as fundamental, existing independently of external validation.
The concept of inherent natural rights, as understood by those who view them as intrinsic to human nature, establishes that individuals possess inalienable entitlements to life, liberty, and property, grounded in their rational and autonomous existence, as given to them by their creator. These rights, independent of societal or governmental sanction, form the bedrock of individual sovereignty. The United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments ratified in 1791, codifies these protections, ensuring freedoms such as speech, religion, and due process while limiting state overreach. This framework reflects a commitment to safeguarding individual autonomy through reasoned principles, emphasizing that rights exist prior to and independent of any external authority.
An arbitrary deprivation of inherent natural rights occurs when an individual’s fundamental entitlements to life, liberty, or property are violated without reasoned justification or evidence-based cause, often through coercive state actions like unwarranted surveillance, physical force, or seizure. Such deprivation undermines autonomy and due process, disregarding the rational basis of rights derived from human nature.
Due process, a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, guarantees fair treatment through established legal procedures, protecting individuals from arbitrary deprivation of their inherent natural rights. Enshrined in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, it mandates procedural safeguards, such as judicial oversight and warrants based on probable cause, alongside substantive protections ensuring laws are reasonable. The judicial branch, tasked with interpreting laws and administering justice, upholds these principles by resolving disputes and checking the powers of other governmental branches. Together, due process and the judicial system ensure that individual liberties are preserved through transparent, evidence-based mechanisms, maintaining the balance of power in favor of the individual.
Government surveillance, particularly through programs like those conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA), violates these protections by engaging in mass data harvesting, such as collecting text messages and strong arming social media companies into giving them backdoors. Such practices often lack specific, individualized suspicion or reason based judicial oversight, violating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. By indiscriminately gathering data, the NSA bypasses the procedural safeguards central to due process, treating individuals as potential threats without evidence. This erosion of autonomy undermines the presumption of innocence, a fundamental tenet of fair treatment under the law.
In philosophical and critical thinking contexts, the burden of proof refers to the obligation of a claimant to provide reasoned, evidence-based arguments to substantiate their position, ensuring clarity and intellectual fairness. It requires that assertions, particularly those challenging established truths or justifying interventions, be supported by relevant and precise evidence to uphold rational discourse and autonomy.
A legal violation of the burden of proof occurs when a party, typically the state or other accuser, fails to provide sufficient evidence to justify an action, such as a conviction or intrusion, thereby improperly shifting the obligation to the accused to prove their innocence. This undermines one’s inherent right to due process, as seen in cases like mass surveillance, where individuals are presumed culpable without evidence-based justification.
Therefore, such surveillance reverses the burden of proof, a key element of due process, by placing the onus on individuals to prove their innocence rather than requiring the government to justify its intrusion with evidence. This inversion disrupts the reasoned process that was meant to protect individual rights, as it presumes guilt without cause. Privacy, as the right to control one’s personal information, is intrinsically linked to due process, acting as a shield against arbitrary state power. Without privacy, the state can monitor and profile individuals preemptively, negating the need for evidence-based justification and undermining the principles of autonomy and fairness.
The preference for privacy-respecting communication platforms, such as Signal, Telegram, or Matrix, over standard text messaging reflects a rational response to these violations. These platforms offer end-to-end encryption and decentralized structures, ensuring that personal communications remain confidential absent a justified, evidence-based intrusion. By prioritizing their right to privacy, individuals protect their rights to autonomy and due process, safeguarding their communications from unwarranted surveillance and reinforcing their inherent natural rights against state sponsored overreach.
In the context of agreements and commercial transactions, privacy refers to the consensual control of information among involved parties, ensuring confidentiality without external interference. Secrecy, however, involves deliberately withholding information, often to obscure details from those parties with a legitimate interest in it, and lacks the moral grounding of privacy as it is used to evade accountability, and also as a means of causing a power imbalance in the agreement. When third parties, such as governments through regulation, licensing, or data harvesting, interject themselves into private agreements, they violate autonomy by accessing information, or granting permission to things that are already considered inherent rights, such as free association and self-direction, without consent or justification. This intrusion, whether through marriage licenses, or state or corporate data collection, disrupts the reasoned, consensual nature of private transactions, undermining individual rights, some of which are listed in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?
If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.
Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right; and the common force cannot rationally have any other end, or any other mission, than that of the isolated forces for which it is substituted. Thus, as the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual—for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes.”
~Frederic Bastiat, “The Law”
The most famous attempt to legitimize the power of the state [beyond the bare minimum justified by Frederic Bastiat] is the social contract theory. This theory is based on the idea that there is a contractual relationship between the government and those governed which obligates the government to provide certain services, such as law and order, and the citizens to pay taxes and obey the law. This theory, however, is not grounded in reality. None of us have ever been presented with a contract requesting our consent, nor has any one signed one. It was not explicit contractual relations that gave rise to most modern states, but war and conquest. ~Academy of Ideas, Should We Obey the Government?
Consent and agreements, whether civil, commercial, or relational, must be rooted in reason and mutual benefit to possess moral legitimacy. Secrecy is fraudulent because one party conceals critical terms, undermining the agreement’s requirement for full disclosure of terms, to secure personal gain or hidden motives that defrauds the other involved parties, therefore making it at the expense of those defrauded, which is theft. Such manipulation distorts an agreement’s voluntary nature, invalidating it as it breaches the principles of rational autonomy and mutual benefit.
Government secrecy, such as the use of “secret” and “top secret” classifications, fundamentally betrays the explicit consent that underpins the supposed social contract between citizens and their public servants by deliberately concealing information to which the governed, as rightful parties, are entitled. This act of withholding constitutes fraud, as it violates the trust essential for informed consent, subverting the rational expectation of transparency and creating a profound imbalance of power. By obscuring the actions of those tasked with serving the public, secrecy transforms public servants into unaccountable authorities, mirroring the deceit of a partner in a personal relationship who hides critical truths, thereby eroding the mutual trust and fairness that define consensual agreements. Such practices not only deny citizens the ability to hold their government accountable, but also undermine the principles of autonomy and reason that justify the existence of governance itself.
Acts that would be considered unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by nongovernmental agents will often be considered perfectly all right, even praiseworthy, when performed by government agents. Why do we accord this special moral status to governments, and are we justified in so doing? This is the problem of political authority. ~Michael Huemer, The Problem of Political Authority
Proponents of government secrecy often argue that it is necessary to protect national security, asserting that withholding information safeguards the public from external threats. However, this is just a Machiavellian justification that supposes that an immoral means can lead to a moral end, meaning that these claims are merely manipulative rationalizations that exploit fear to perpetuate unchecked authority, akin to gaslighting in an interpersonal relationship where one party conceals truths and makes the other look or feel crazy to maintain control. This deliberate opacity violates the explicit consent necessary in the governed-government relationship, defrauding citizens of their agency and right to oversee those entrusted with providing for their common defense. The absence of clear, reasoned evidence to support such secrecy further compounds its ethical failure, as it prioritizes power over accountability, fundamentally breaching the mutual trust required for a just and consensual social contract.
In conclusion, the interplay of privacy, secrecy, and government surveillance reveals a tension between individual autonomy and state power. Privacy, rooted in the protection of the individual’s inherent natural rights, aligns with due process by ensuring fair, evidence-based treatment, while secrecy, which is never justified, disrupts this balance by obscuring accountability. The NSA’s data harvesting practices exemplify this violation, reversing the burden of proof and effectively means the government is not only acting in violation of the terms of their agreement with the public, but is committing fraud as well. By prioritizing privacy through secure communication platforms and expecting transparency from any so-called public servants, individuals uphold their rational autonomy and reinforce the principles of a free society. The ethical distinction between privacy and secrecy underscores the need for vigilance in protecting inherent rights against encroachments that undermine reason and fairness.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1q0dr3t3qxs70zl0y5ccz7zesdepek3hs8mq9q76
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
