“thus what was once considered private is now simply considered a constituent of a new identity created in a world where privacy may hold little meaning”

…or different meaning.

It is interesting that the ‘private’ in privacy today is more associated with liberalism than psychology. Consider the definition from Webster’s 1878 Dictionary of the English language:

1 A state of retirement
2 A place of seclusion; retreat
3 Concealment; secresy

Compared to today (New Oxford American Dictionary 2nd edition):
1 the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people
2 the state of being free from public attention

In the contemporary definition the state, or condition, of being free lends itself nicely to the Libertarian world view of Zuckerberg. Privacy is about being free and not being human. It is political and not existential and such is contingent upon the state. If we consider the hollowing out of the state, the privatization of the state, we see that privacy hasn’t devolved— it has been privatized and the distribution of privacy is now determined by the market compared to guaranteed by the state.

In this, we have sacrificed our privacy to the Web to achieve a lifestyle of convenience and immediacy only known to past generations by the wealthy. Ironically, today the wealthy now enjoy the privacy that we once took for granted and can no longer afford.

That which remains psychologically private… does it remain so only because it has not yet been commodified or because it is not able to become a commodity? What of our self could become a commodity but poses too great a risk, removes something ‘core’ to our personhood?

I suppose David Farmer might say that what is happening is that we need to think of a new term for what the symbol of privacy now means; applied through social (or technological) evolution. In this sense, it may, as Jeff says, “give birth to new identities” and thus what was once considered private is now simply considered a constituent of a new identity created in a world where privacy may hold little meaning.

More people need to be outraged by this. Our donors give restricted/unrestricted as they so please. Not because they are mandated by a govt. protocol. Goto http://www.nj.com and check out how many elected officials in the past 90 days have been arrested and/or resigned due taking bribes. As a public general, do we really trust our elected officials? Honestly, why – when we are the managers of non-profits, would we allow this to occur without educated debate? Is there some idea of decorum that filters us from speaking up when necessary? We are the majority who understand this issue on a daily basis. We should be leading the charge to speak clearly, honestly, and with assertion about how detrimental this will be to U.S. Charity. Our donors want us to do what is necessary and right with their donation, unrestricted or restricted. That is what I believe is core of this matter. Stating the richest get a tax double dip is only the tip of the iceberg. This has been going on since the J.P. Morgan’s of the philanthropy world so why suddenly is it NOW an issue.

The representative electoral system we have now is clearly not perfect, but it does seem fairer and more democratic that lawmakers get to decide on public policy–we elect them and they are accountable to us all, not just the wealthiest people.–at least when it comes to ensuring a baseline of support for citizens.

Good point about large endowments–though perhaps not so large these days. It seems that the really big endowed organizations benefit the most from the current tax system. We might all agree that is okay, but I also think one of the great things about the nonprofit sector is its diversity and pockets of grassroots and community action. I’d like to see more encouragement of grassroots and community philanthropy rather than more of the same tax benefits just for the wealthiest.

“where democratically elected representatives, with input from citizens, rather than the wealthiest, decide in a more holistic fashion where best to distribute resources that will provide a base-line of support for citizens”

is not, I believe, what givers desire, even if they contribute $10.00 a year. The issue of choice is what makes philanthropy powerful. Is it unfair? Perhaps. But it will not be more fair by having lawmakers decide who is most deserving.

http://www.archive.org/details/newstategrouporg00folluoft

You may enjoy this film: http://www.archive.org/details/panorama_ephemera2004