Its none of your business

Seeing no objection to my aforementioned definitions, I will present my case with no further adue. What this debate really comes down to is living in a society that protects absolute privacy vs living in one where full disclosure is actively enforced. The enforcement role could be assumed by a number of entities (church, thus living in a theocratic state, citizens alliances, what have you) not necessarily the federal government. Because of this fact, unconstitutionality is irrelevant. Even if my opponent can prove how the federal government could be the only possible enforcer, their point would be rendered irrelevant. In this scenario, we are focusing on a hypothetical country, with features more or less like the united states, but no obligation to maintain stare decisis. Enacted by president Bush as a direct response to 9/11, the patriot act allowed for the unwarrented wiretapping of phones. While today, many citizens are slightly annoyed by this fact, it rarely affects their daily lives. After all, why should an average upstanding citizen have anything to fear, considering they have nothing to hide? While many seem to have generated an image of what a terrorist looks like, and are fairly confident that with moderate vigilance, can spot After all, why should an average upstanding citizen have anything to fear, considering they have nothing to hide? While many seem to have generated an image of what a terrorist looks like, and are fairly confident that with moderate vigilance, can spot suspicious activity, this image of a terrorist is not only racist, but inaccurate and unreliable. The unibomber was white, and dressed in casual domestic street clothes, as did the Oklahoma city bomber. The anthrax mailer was discrete and faceless. As a more recent and relevant example, the assailant who attempted to assassinate Gabriel Giffords was not only assimilable well in a crowd, he once was lively and well mannered, as described by former friends. But his descent into paranoia and obsession was unmonitored. It was allowed to manifest into hate, and thus the assailant planned and carried out his plans. If, at any point leading up to the shooting, his activity was our business, a tragedy would have been prevented. Just one of the many examples of a missed opportunity due to the love of keeping information from everybody and anybody. Of course, full disclosure would not only be limited to citizen. This obligation would be extended to the government. This would, in the most broad terms, produce two benefits to the average person. The first is perhaps trivial, but enjoyable nonetheless. Nearly everyone has been confronted with the mad rantings of a conspiracy theorist. From far fetched scenarios regarding the jfk assassination, to a coverup at Roswell, these theories usually center around a government entity withholding conclusive evidence from the public. Under a policy of absolute disclosure, all conspiracy theories would either be put to rest, or (far less likely) confirmed. Either way, speculation ends. Time wasted on television entertaining these theories, on channels such as the history channel, would be replaced by programming that is ACTUALLY informative. suspicious activity, this image of a terrorist is not only racist, but inaccurate and unreliable. The unibomber was white, and dressed in casual domestic street clothes, as did the Oklahoma city bomber. The anthrax mailer was discrete and faceless. As a more recent and relevant example, the assailant who attempted to assassinate Gabriel Giffords