Is Privacy a Human Right?
Yesterday a 9 judge bench of the Supreme Court of India gave a so-called historic decision of declaring privacy
a fundamental human right now enshrined in the article 21 of the Indian
constitution. Many are saying that this for the first time that some
verdict is given unanimously by the bench 9 judges. This verdict now
includes privacy also as a part of fundamental rights in article 21 of
the Indian constitution, which wasn’t the case previously. Most people
of the country and intellectuals have cheerfully welcomed this verdict
hoping that this will stop the ruling BJP government from becoming
totalitarian. The legal experts have hailed this verdict as historic, a
watershed moment and a victory for common citizens by saying that it has
far reaching implications for the matters like the beef ban, forceful
use of Aadhaar card, government telling people what to wear and eat,
abortion, LGBT rights, government surveillance in the form of reading
peoples’ emails, text messages, listening to phone calls (wiretapping),
and married women will have the right not to get raped in marriage etc.
etc.
Most freedom loving people of India are
also cheering this verdict because they think this is a blow to the Modi
government who was arguing that people don’t have a right to privacy.
I think this is a moment which needs a
calm reflection without any kind of such euphoria. I can understand that
people are happy because the way Modi and his government are trying to
control the body and mind of people this verdict seems like putting a
break on those efforts. Notwithstanding this perception, the fundamental
issue involved here is, should we give so much of importance to the
issue of right to privacy and think it is a
fundamental human right? What if the fundamental human right is
something else and Supreme Court is not talking about it at all? In that
case all hope of this verdict stopping Modi and his government from
trampling on human rights turns out to be delusional. A careful logical
analysis of ‘privacy as a human right’ issue will make this clear.
Is Privacy a Human Right?
Before answering this question of whether
privacy is a human right or not we have to understand what human right
actually is. To show that something is right for the humans we have to understand the basic human nature. Anything that is in accordance with this human nature is right and if it is not then it is wrong. The basic human nature is that nature has given all of us life.
The basic life form is our own body. This life we can all sustain and
enjoy only if we are free to use our bodies without any kind of
restrictions from outside. Our body is thus our own i.e., we are the
ultimate owners of our body, and ownership means this body is our property.
For sustaining and enjoying our lives to its fullest potential we also
need other resources like food, water, clothes, home, cars, computers
etc. etc. We can acquire and own these prior unowned physical scarce
resources via use of our bodies by appropriating them first. By this way
we can make these resources our property too. Thus, as long as we are
free to use our bodies and resources appropriated by using that body,
together called our private property, we fulfill our nature.
Anyone who infringes on the use of our private properties is violating
our right. This proves that human right is nothing else but property
right. This also proves that human right is basically a negative right
i.e., others cannot stop me from using my property and similarly I
cannot stop others from using their properties. As Prof. Murray
Rothbard, the great 20th century philosopher of ethics, said:
And yet, on the contrary the concept of “rights” only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.In the first place, there are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person’s right to his own body, his personal liberty, is a property right in his own person as well as a “human right.” But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory.
After elucidating what human right is, we are ready to tackle the question of privacy
as a human right. As Murray Rothbard above said, when human rights are
not defined based on the bedrock standard of property rights they lose
their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable to
misuse. The case of privacy as a fundamental human right, as
declared by the Supreme Court, falls in this category of defining human
right without the firm base of property right. As Prof. Walter Block said, privacy is a benefit and not a right. To understand this fact let us take an example involving the issue of privacy. In this regard I am going to quote Prof. Murray Rothbard. Rothbard is using an example:
Does Smith, for example, have the right to print and disseminate the statement that “Jones is a liar” or that “Jones is a convicted thief” or that “Jones is a homosexual”? There are three logical possibilities about the truth of such a statement: (a) that the statement about Jones is true; (b) that it is false and Smith knows it is false; or (c) most realistically that the truth or falsity of the statement is a fuzzy zone, not certainly and precisely knowable (e.g., in the above cases, whether or not someone is a “liar” depends on how many and how intense the pattern of lies a person has told and is adjudged to add up to the category of “liar – an area where individual judgments can and will properly differ).
Suppose that Smith’s statement is definitely true. It seems clear, then, that Smith has a perfect right to print and disseminate the statement. For it is within his property right to do so. It is also, of course, within the property right of Jones to try to rebut the statement in his turn. The current libel laws make Smith’s action illegal if done with “malicious” intent, even though the information be true. And yet, surely legality or illegality should depend not on the motivation of the actor, but on the objective nature of the act. If an action is objectively non-invasive, then it should be legal regardless of the benevolent or malicious intentions of the actor (though the latter may well be relevant to the morality of the action). And this is aside from the obvious difficulties in legally determining an individual’s subjective motivations for any action.
It might, however, be charged that Smith does not have the right to print such a statement, because Jones has a “right to privacy” (his “human” right) which Smith does not have the right to violate. But is there really such a right to privacy? How can there be? How can there be a right to prevent Smith by force from disseminating knowledge which he possesses? Surely there can be no such right. Smith owns his own body and therefore has the property right to own the knowledge he has inside his head, including his knowledge about Jones. And therefore he has the corollary right to print and disseminate that knowledge. In short, as in the case of the “human right” to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s property from invasion. The only right “to privacy” is the right to protect one’s property from being invaded by someone else. In brief, no one has the right to burgle someone else’s home, or to wiretap someone’s phone lines. Wiretapping is properly a crime not because of some vague and woolly “invasion of a ‘right to privacy’,” but because it is an invasion of the property right of the person being wiretapped.
Similarly, the reason why government
cannot stop us from eating whatever we want (beef) or force us to use
Aadhaar card by making it compulsory everywhere is not because these
actions of government violates our ‘privacy right’ but it violates our
‘property right’. The government cannot invade our privacy not because
we have such ‘right to privacy’ but because the government itself has no
rights at all. The government itself is an illegitimate illegal
institution because it violates property rights of everyone, by
initiating violence against all of us in the form of taxation etc., for
its existence! Because of this reason, the government has no right to do
anything.
Conclusion
As we have seen above, privacy is not a human right let alone a fundamental one. The only fundamental human right is property right.
The Supreme Court ruling never ever mentioned this property right. In
fact, the Indian constitution nowhere mentions property right as a
fundamental human right. In fact, the Indian constitution is replete
with rights like right to education, right to be not discriminated
against etc., which are not rights at all but violation of (property)
right! The fact remains that there is no concept of property right in
India!
The danger of cheering for Supreme
Court’s decision of including privacy as a fundamental human right in
article 21 of the Indian constitution is the implicit acceptance of
whatever the Indian constitution is saying. This constitution is a
flawed document designed, prepared and signed by few people six decades
ago. That document cannot bind billions of Indians in some imaginary
implicit social contract with the Indian nation state (aka government). In this regard the great American legal theorist Lysander Spooner said:
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.
The Indian constitution has no authority
over us. It is a ruse used by the state officials to rule and control us
for centuries. As long as Indians continue to be ruled by these state
officials, by using the document that they designed, Indians can never
be free to enjoy their lives, property or even privacy.
Sir doesn't the intention of judges was to partially inculcate right to property in disguise of right to privacy in our constitution?Because they know we have no right to property mentioned in our constitution.
ReplyDeleteAlso like you mentioned the decision is hailed more for it acting as a brake on the throttle of the fascist govt.
Also i concur with you that the constitution need to be re written because it is contradictory but then the question arises by whom?
I do not see any such intention of judges in their actions. I doubt whether most of these judges also understand the issue of 'property right as human right'. If they understand then they can explicitly mention it; there is no need to talk indirectly in such crucial life and death matter. Thinking that it will put brakes on Modi is optimism, but that won't do much help. The government is not budging on issues like Aadhaar card or beef ban even after this judgement. I strongly think the only opposition left in front of Modi now is 'the people'. The system is not going to dramatically oppose him.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, the constitution is a ruse. We need to look at other alternative forms of political system for the Indian subcontinent. Start looking at the idea of secession first.
Great article as always. Makes things crystal clear.
ReplyDeleteDr. Raj
ReplyDeleteOnly want to elaborate on this item
"In fact, the Indian constitution nowhere mentions property right as a fundamental human right."
The right to Property was in fact a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution when it was originally adopted (subject as always to "reasonable restrictions" - that perfidious term !)
It was the 44th Amendment to the constitution that removed the right to property as a Fundamental Right and turned it into merely a Legal Right. This means it can effectively be taken away from Indians by an act of Legislature. It is a right granted by Government, as opposed to a right - as Judge Andrew Napolitano would put it - that derives from our humanity.
PS - Thank you for starting the Mises India chapter. I wish someone had taught me Austrian economics when I was young. I learned the hard way !
Thanks for elaborating on the constitution point. As Bastiat said, we have human rights not because constitution gives them to us, but we have constitution because we have God (nature) given rights to begin with. And thanks for those kind wishes about Mises India.
Delete