Is The Right To Privacy A Right At All?

Arguably the most esteemed right of libertarians is the right to privacy. This is perhaps the very crux of what libertarianism isthe right to have a life free of intrusion. This is the one right libertarians have used as a means to argue against the Patriot Act, mass surveillance, and big government overall. It is often cited as unconstitutional when a government program oversteps this cherished right that libertarians claim the Founders alluded to in the Ninth Amendment.

But lately I’ve been struck with the question as to whether or not “privacy” is a right. This came when I inspected the argument that came from former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Hugo Black, when Griswold v. Connecticut was decided. In his dissenting opinion, he argued that “There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’ But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but ‘privacy.'”

He goes on to argue that “‘Privacy’ is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures.” In other words, he argues that although the Constitution in some aspects protects privacy, the Fourth Amendment by itself doesn’t protect “privacy” and the very term “privacy” itself can be used as an argument against searches and seizures, even if a search warrant were to be obtained.
I find this argument to be particularly important because Hugo Black challenged the very notion of “privacy” as a right, much in the same manner modern-day right-wingers challenge the notion that healthcare is a right. Now it is apparent that the Left loves to see everything as right, whether it is healthcare, safe spaces, or even entire communities like the LGBTQ. They will attach the notion of rights to anything they support. I feel that libertarians are doing the same to a certain extent regarding privacy.

Libertarians would be wise to consider the following question: Is there an actual right to “privacy?”

I normally make the argument that rights can only be rights if they can be exercised autonomously. This argument maintains that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press are absolute rights because they can be practiced through individual means. I need no authority to tell me I can speak, practice whatever religion I want, or protest; I have every right to do all three. But I have no right to someone else’s services because that is equivalent to slavery, which is a moral atrocity. I simply cannot demand that another give me their income or service because I have a “right” to that. To say something is a right, implies that when that right is denied, a crime is committed. Crimes are committed when the rights to speech, religion, protest, property, and life are denied. Can the same be said if I refuse to give someone a portion of my income? The answer is no, of course.

That being said, does privacy pass the litmus test for an actual right?

Privacy is not something that can be practiced autonomously. For privacy to be attained, one would need the cooperation of others to respect their individual sphere. Though some would argue that the individual sphere is a right to begin with, I would refute this by asking whether or not annoyance is in direct violation of the right. Sometimes, another human being will just interrupt your individual sphere, and present himself as an annoyance. If he has interrupted your personal sphere, can you have him charged for a crime of annoyance? No, you cannot. The reality is that interruption of the individual sphere is not criminalized unless it violates another right, such as property or life.

So in reality, privacy, just like healthcare, is not a right at all. Instead, it is used by libertarians to escape intellectual debate and use buzzwords to attract support. Now, in this article I do not mean to undermine the importance of privacy, I simply mean to debunk the idea that it is another God-given right. Of course privacy is important, but it is not automatically granted to a person. Much like respect, privacy is a virtue that needs to earned and developed, rather than demanded.


  1. So, if someone doxxes you and exposes your address, salary history, tax records, phone numbers, and even our medical history, it’s all okay because you have no “right” to keep that private?
    If you don’t consider all this information “private”, please feel free to post it in a followup.

    • I feel as though arguing on the basis of property is more suffice than privacy. So in regards to your example, I would argue that all of the information is personal property that has been unreasonably searched and seized, thus violating the 4th amendment.

      In addition, to answer your question, I do believe that information is private. But realistically and philosophically, you cannot render it “private” because you think it is your right. Instead, you must make amends to make your information private.

      I’ve stated in the final paragraph that I believe privacy is important, I just don’t believe it is a concept you’re entitled to.

      • First the 4th Amendment only applies to Government, not private parties, which is why Google, Facebook, etc. are so dangerous.
        Who owns your GMail? you or Google? If Google owns it, the Government need only ask Google, not you.
        But also assume I make my information private and it is stolen? Then what? How do you unring a bell? And it isn’t like physical property that can be replaced or paid for. Like the Equifax breach – did you give anyone permission to give all your information to them? When it is now public on the darkweb where it can’t be deleted, what recourse do you have?
        One of the moral paradoxes on lying is “Are you hiding Nazis?”. Are you entitled not to reveal, and to lie if necessary?

  2. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”.

    If the second amendment applies to modern firearms (it does) then the 4th applies to modern day papers and effects (digital records, phone data etc.). Since I doubt anyone at “Liberty” Conservative would say we should ban semiautomatic weapons it is incredibly inconsistent and frankly idiotic to claim that there is no right to privacy.

Comments are closed.

Latest from Philosophy

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.