>
encryption won't prevent the government from harassing me based on my skin color or my choice of employment, or anything else I do or am that can't be encrypted.Agreed. But if these are your overriding concerns, then go campaign for them. Don't campaign against privacy in hope of indirectly fixing your actual concerns. Surely you'd agree a world without privacy but still with governmental discrimination is the worst outcome, and by inverting and campaigning against autonomy you'll find it quite easy to get to.
> I don't know how to respond to that as any rights and morals you could legitimately give yourself or obey by definition can not depend on other people's compliance.
Well it's pretty simple for them to get their subject to comply, by applying pain.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd reply that they are acting immorally. But that is not how you originally defined the problem.
So we change the definition to require non-aggression, there is no one left to enforce transgressions.
So we change the definition to allow aggression only to enforce non-aggression - then we have to pull in a concept of what's-worse to avoid escalation. And this framework must still be agreed upon by everybody!
This is not arbitrary bickering or simply not defining things smart enough. This is the inherent generation of complexity by following implications.
> Really? Do you even know your neighbors?
Now, not so much. In the past, sure. It's a general saying, and it's a general saying for a reason. The idea is to not have to negotiate socially with them. Please read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory), it fits right in with the other concepts you are referencing.
