Hi sweet thing! Still píssed at me? And I did want to mention (before you banned me from LS) that Miss Congeniality is one of my favorite movies, you wannabe FBI agent, you. ;-) But on to your point...you are absolutely correct. If someone puts their own personal info out there for the whole world to see, that's not "doxing" that's just plain stupid. And when other people look them up and find dirt they have only themselves to blame. I don't get their indignation either.


Simple stuff, but it seems a lot of folks just don't grasp that concept. It's like I told my wife years ago about cell phones; they are radio transceivers. Don't say anything over the cell phone that you wouldn't broadcast over an open radio channel. By extension, don't post anything on the Internet you don't want the whole world to see...


What's interesting is that some of Joe McCarthy's detractors came out later and admitted that the government was infiltrated by communists bent on subverting the Constitutional Republic from within and laughed about it being "too late now!"  Marx himself said that Democracy is the road to Socialism. Unfortunately much of the Democrat's platform is socialistic in nature and socialism is not an end to itself, but the road to communism. Socialism and Communism are collectivist and incompatible with individual liberty. If you agree with the proponents of the these political systems when they take power, you will be allowed to speak. If you disagree you will end up in prison, a labor camp or in a mental hospital (if you aren't summarily executed). The former Soviet Union proved all of this to be true. List making, naming your enemies if you will, is engaged in by all political fronts.  Left or right doesn’t matter when it comes to labelling your enemies; both sides do it. There are plenty of people on the right that consider your position "a very scary kind of extremism" as well. The struggle for power never ends...


Yes, the causal claim is suggestive, not definitive. Society has been shaped for thousands of years to support child-bearing, permanent pair bonds sanctified as marriage. So it may not be marriage that conveys the protection, but society's support of marriage.
It is both fallacious and dangerous, however, to suggest that marriage is simply a social preference that can be discarded as an outmoded tradition. What Sowell calls the unarticulated wisdom of the masses has been informed by the SUCCESS of that tradition--and nothing has changed in the past 10, 100, or thousand years that obviates that wisdom.
As far as requiring heterosexual marriage or paternal oversight, the West has not moved in this direction. Indeed, it has moved away from that direction. It's better to think of this as a risk management exercise: if you're married, you have a lower actuarial chance of being the victim of violence. This is unequivocal, and does not require any causal claim. It also says nothing about other choices, simply that they convey higher risks of certain outcomes. That doesn't mean married women won't be victimized (as you have pointed out), or that unmarried women WILL.


Have you read any work by "left-leaning" (don't like the term) libertarians?


This is one thing that is not taught enough. The argument stands on its own merits.


Most? Out of the world's 192 countries, 123 are democracies. Even assuming not all democracies are as friendly to freedom of speech as they should be, you're making a pretty bold claim.
With all due respect, the US isn't the only country that knows liberty.


- You say, "If a person breaches their own privacy, then using that information only becomes doxing if you use it maliciously to try and cause harm to them". I find the last bit interesting. Some years ago there was an "Occupy Wall Street" demonstration and a group of demonstrators sat down in the middle of the street, locking arms. They were acting with self-discipline and without a trace of violence. A policeman becomes enraged and sprays them all with pepper spray at close range. The internet group Anonymous finds out the identity and phone No. of this policeman and posts this on the internet. Their purpose is to invite people to ring the policeman and his family at home and cause 'malicious harm' to them, verbally. Was Anonymous right or wrong? It's not exactly doxing, because the policeman acted in the public arena, and his identity is public information but not his phone No. (not in this context). - Now I'd suggest that the policeman acted maliciously and that by his act his phone No. should be made public. My justification is to claim that, in some cases (not all), when someone acts like this policeman did, there is such a thing as 'poetic justice' - even if it is illegal and motivated by revenge.


Wow, with all of this non professional analyzation, its a wonder you don't send a bill.  I suppose if you toss out enough labels you can get one or two to stick and then you don't have to analyze your own faults.


It is one of the very few that has a strong constitution and freedom of speech. No Western European country has it.  Democracies used very loosely.  Most are republics.  Democratic process of Representative Democracy would be much more accurate