What is wrong with this logic?

Question

Example (just an example, do not read into it): Let's say that a President wants to tap people's phone conversations.

What is wrong with the logic of people who say "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't care what he does".

My personal feeling is this.... it's not a matter of whether or not I am doing anything wrong. Just because I am a law abiding citizen does not mean I am going to submit to everything that the authorities tell me to do, just because I am not hiding something.

Can anyone else help me with this faulty logic?

P.S. I was not referring to Bush. It was an example that came to mind.

Wow! 3 answers so far that completely missed the question I was actually asking.

Answer 1

I know, I absolutely want to throttle people with that attitude. Whenever some conformist yutz in one of these online forums says "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide" I usually counter with the following:

Do you have curtains on your windows at home? Really? Whattsamatter, you got something to hide?

OR

When you mail somebody a letter, do you "hide" it inside an envelope instead of openly writing your message on a postcard? Oh? Why, are you doing something wrong that you don't want people to see? What kind of dangerous secrets are you concealing from the public?

And I could go on and on...

Answer 2

The flaw in the logic is that "doing anything wrong" can change by definition. Suppose the person or government agency decided that it was wrong to say anything bad about the president. Or suppose they decided that anyone who expressed a disbelief in God was a danger to the state. The problem is that you can't always guarantee who is listening and from what viewpoint they are operating. There is no guarantee that action will not be taken against you only for breaking an actual law. They could just as easily take action against you for a perceived wrong, and since for certain classes of "wrong" today, there is no habeas corpus, you could just be put in jail and left to rot, without access to a lawyer or anyone in the outside world.

Answer 3

The problem is you're trusting the people who have your personal info will not use it to their own personal benefit. If you think everyone is doing good with information they obtained illegally, just go back to Nixon's administration (it hasn't been that long). I am a pro-law enforcement person, but everyone has to admit there are some (very small portion) of law enforcement and government employees who do bad things. Every time you hear about cops beating an unarmed person (and I'm not talking about high on PCP), you have to wonder whether you'd want someone like that know EVERYTHING about you. I know, 99.9% of the people are trying to do their best to protect society and they're genuinely good people for getting paid half as much as they would otherwise just because they believe in what they do, but do you want that very small minority to be able to abuse you even more than possible now. We have many safeguards in place to prevent that, and when those safeguards are circumvented, bad things happen. Even those who intend to do good can get carried away when they develop tunnel-vision (which is inevitable when you spend all day studying all the threats facing the country. You start thinking the world is even worse and more dangerous than it is and people who don't see that are ignorant and they don't know what's best for them. Then you start doing things that the rest of society is not willing to accept. This is not to say you're a bad person, this is inevitable! When you spend all day, every day in a cubicle studying intelligence from sources around the world, trying to imagine all the possible evils in the world. God bless them for doing. Especially since some of us take security and prosperity for granted. There are people out there who sacrifice things some of us haven't to make sure we have it. But we have safeguards in place to make sure those whose job it is to protect us don't get too disassociated from the rest of society. When people come together to form a community, the values of the individuals are aggregated to figure out the values of the community, and we want to make sure everyone follow them. This is the contract theory of society (from people like Hobbes, Locke, etc) and this is what the founders relied on to form our constitution and our country. These are the values of our country. Hence the "We the People..." beginning to the Preamble of the Constitution and the idea that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Read the Declaration of Independence, it's clear that Jefferson believed this when he wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted by men..." So, when a leader or anyone else goes beyond the bounds society has outlined and outside the values the community has set up (through a Constitution and laws) we generally don't think of it as a good thing.
Remember, the idea is not that we're afraid of bad people abusing it, they would generally find ways to be bad anyways. The point is to protect society from the tunnel-vision EVERYONE would develop when doing the job our great heroes are doing ON OUR BEHALF. God bless them for doing it, and it's up to all of us, as citizens to make sure it's done within the bounds we're willing to accept. That's the beauty of democracy, and that's been the struggle democracy has had with other forms of government for over a couple of hundred years (at least since the French Revolution).

Answer 4

but here's the thing. you think you are a law abiding citizen, not doing anything wrong. that's your perspective, and possibly true. however it's easy to see that someone else may have a different perspective, or perhaps a devious agenda. therein lies the problem. words may be twisted, irrational 'logic' applied. your question here could be looked at as subversive by some (certainly not by me). this was shown to us over and over again in the infamous McCarthy era which is being unpacked, dusted off, and used again by certain sick elements. and too, take the first poster; if he was really paranoid, he would see that this sort of phone activity is highly suspicious (to certain elements).

edit: and thumbs up to john, below. on this issue, i think he sees the light.

Answer 5

purely through fact some guy who's been lifeless for hundreds of years says it is so, that are no longer making it so, genius. the whole "logical" argument right here starts from a fallacy. You presuppose that what the Bible says is actual, consequently no longer something that disagrees with the Bible can consequently be actual. you're no longer arguing logic, you're arguing perception, and there you have purely your man or woman adventure and opinion to count upon. you are able to not extra say that my logic is backwards than you are able to say that your logic is logic.

Answer 6

The logic is faulty if in fact that's the logic they are using to justify arbitrarily tapping ANYONE's phone number. The logic stands if there is a REASON to tap your phone and listen to your conversations.

The same logic is used when a detective calls your name and wants to talk to you when you have no idea why. If you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

Answer 7

US Constitution

Article 1

Section 9

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Normally it would be a violation of the Constitution for warrentless search and seize, however in cases where the country is under attack from either foreign or domestic enemies. The Writ of Habeaus Corpus (Due Process) may be suspended when the public safety requires it.

As far as I know it has been done 4 times in American History

1 Lincoln did it during the civil war to seize the confederates.

2 Grant did it during Reconstruction with the KKK Acts to seize KKK Members who were terrorising blacks and white sympathizers.

3 Clinton did it in 96 as a result of terroist attacks on Oklahoma City in 93

4 Bush did it in 01 after the attacks on 9/11

All the presidents were within their rights according to the US Constitution.

Answer 8

Because it is an invasion of privacy. I am a very strong conservative, and I expect some level of privacy. Now conversely, if I am calling someone that I know who has a history of crime, or that I know is wanting to do others harm, I should understand that that person may be under investigation, and have willingly given up any reason to feel that that call will be private.

Answer 9

The fault with the logic is that if I want to have phone sex with my lover, I should not have to worry about the feds listening in. If I want to say that Bush is, say, an idiot, I should not have to worry. Also, if I did, and G-d knows I don't, say something positive about the terrorists, the feds have not right to listen in. That is what being free is all about. Hate what someone says, but fight for their right to say it.

Answer 10

Isnt America a free country? Would this same president like for us a privite citizen go into his office and read his papers or listen to his conversation. Finding out he is sleeping with one of his advisors. I don't think so.
Anyone who is willing to give up their freedom is not worthy of being free.