Most libertarians would say that a right to privacy doesn't exist. However I am inclined to think that in some cases it should be legally enforced. I have several arguments for that:
1. What if a new technology will be available that will give complete visual and audio information about everything that happens in your neighbors house, including the thoughts inside the head of your neighbor, all that without physically harming the property of the neighbor? Let's also suppose that defensive mechanisms for this technology are very expensive so most people would not be protected against it. Would we really want it to be legal for you to publish a video of your neighbor sex life, or other initimate details on the internet? Remember the neighbor has no protection against that, and there was no other way in which you could have received that information besides using this futuristic technology. In my opinion it would be very dogmatic and simply blind to legalize in all cases the use of such technology.
2. Do we really want to legalize stalkers? What if you have a stalker for many years? He does nothing illegal, he just follows you around everywhere and curses you whenever possible. A reaction of a normal person would be either to sue or to beat the crap out of the stalker. If libertarians won't offer a good solution to this, then beating is what will happen in most cases.
3. What are the arguments in favor of letting some gross violations of privacy to be legal? Please don't give me some sort of moral or dogmatic reason. I want to hear for example why allowing a person to use sophisticated optical equipment to record a video of his neighbor masturbating and then publishing it on the internet could have any positive consequnces. What is so wrong in demanding damages to be payed to the victim of such malicious act? If we demand the thief of a bubblegum to pay damages, even though the theft of a bubblegum barely hurt anyone, then how can we not demand damages to be payed to someone whose life may have been ruined after his most intimate details were published for everyone to know and the bastard who did it happily continues to do the same to other people?
Stop moving away from property and property rights.
It seems there's a simple solution to this. As filc (? f-i-l-c right?) says, that is property. Basically if someone is stalking for years you have the right to take action against them. I don't see why something like a restraining order wouldn't be possible in a libertarian society. As far as privacy goes, somethng that lets you see into someone else's home and into their mind is an invasion of personal property and is subject to retaliation. This is why, in a libertarian society, I would have much more power to take action against some group that wants to monitor my internet activities or tap my phone, unlike in a society where there is but one ultimate authority.
The people should have privacy from the Federal Government but the people should not have privacy from the States if the State legislatures wish to take away their privacy. I hold that view due to the fact that I'm an anarcho-capitalist first and Antifederalist 2nd.
Eugene: Most libertarians would say that a right to privacy doesn't exist. However I am inclined to think that in some cases it should be legally enforced.
Most libertarians would say that a right to privacy doesn't exist. However I am inclined to think that in some cases it should be legally enforced.
I love how you just avoid the notion it doesn't exist and want to legislate anyway. You would have made a great politician.
Eugene:1. What if a new technology will be available that will give complete visual and audio information about everything that happens in your neighbors house, including the thoughts inside the head of your neighbor, all that without physically harming the property of the neighbor?
Then Israel will be able to develop the perfect police state. I thought you wanted that.
Eugene:2. Do we really want to legalize stalkers?
Answer 1: What does she look like?
Answer 2: Do you really want to legalize violence (have a state)?
Eugene:3. What are the arguments in favor of letting some gross violations of privacy to be legal?
I don't think you understand the burden of proof. You have to prove why they should be illegal, not the other way around.
1. One of the things you don't seem to realize is that, if your neighbors can spy on you, then you can also spy on them. So everyone would be spying on each other, at which point the old proverb about people who live in glass houses springs to mind.
2. First off, I'd love to see you provide more reasoning and/or evidence about how suing or beating an alleged stalker is the reaction of a "normal person". Second, the same thing applies to your claim that "beating is what will happen in most cases" of stalking. Third, a stalker doesn't have to be welcome on your property. Or your neighbors' property. Or your neighbors' neighbors' property. Or the property of businesses and other establishments that you frequent. Hopefully you see my point here. I think stalkers will be dealt with as trespassers.
3. Before I actually respond to this, I'd really like to hear your definitions/explanations of "positive consequences", "malicious acts", and "ruining lives". So far, I can only conclude that you're using these terms as "weasel words".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Eugene, by reading my comments on this forum you are stalking my Internet activity. If you dare to quote me this is going to be considered property rights violation.
1. So what if I can spy on my neighbor? Should I then spend half of my time spying on him just because he is such a pervert? He might not even care. Why not just sue the bastard and demand damages?
2. First of all its not so easy to treat stalkers as trespassers. You have to ask for this specifically from each land owner. Second of all do you imply that in current society stalkers should indeed be prosecuted? I somehow doubt that. Regarding your question. If someone follows you around all the time and curses you, then I'm sure most people would beat up that person. I can't prove it to you, but I am pretty convinced that no sane person will just let a stalker follow him around.
3. I prefer not to start a philosophical debate about semantics. Let's try to be practical. Do you believe that perverts who like to spy on people and publish intimate details about them on the internet for other perverts to see should be free to do so? I see only huge disadvantage in letting this behavior be unpunished. What is the advantage?
Eugene:Why not just sue the bastard and demand damages?
What damage will you claim?
Eugene:I somehow doubt that. Regarding your question. If someone follows you around all the time and curses you, then I'm sure most people would beat up that person. I can't prove it to you, but I am pretty convinced that no sane person will just let a stalker follow him around.
They can't follow you around without trespassing.
Eugene:3. I prefer not to start a philosophical debate about semantics. Let's try to be practical.
Why not aim for reasonable?
Eugene:Do you believe that perverts who like to spy on people and publish intimate details about them on the internet for other perverts to see should be free to do so?
Can you tell me why they shouldn't be allowed to do so?
Eugene:I see only huge disadvantage in letting this behavior be unpunished. What is the advantage?
Again, what damage will you punish?
The burden of proof is on you in all of these threads Eugene. I am going to remind you of that each time you try to shift it.
Eugene:Let's also suppose that defensive mechanisms for this technology are very expensive so most people would not be protected against it.
You are just trying to force a specific conclusion. Imagine there was a guy walking down the street and there was an X on the ground with a piano over it, let's just imagine that it is impossible for him to walk around the X, and impossible for him to turn around and walk the other way, and it is impossible for him to stand in place, and his only choice is to walk towards the X.
Eugene:Would we really want it to be legal for you to publish a video of your neighbor sex life, or other initimate details on the internet? Remember the neighbor has no protection against that, and there was no other way in which you could have received that information besides using this futuristic technology.
What property is being damaged?
Eugene:What if you have a stalker for many years? He does nothing illegal, he just follows you around everywhere and curses you whenever possible. A reaction of a normal person would be either to sue or to beat the crap out of the stalker. If libertarians won't offer a good solution to this, then beating is what will happen in most cases.
I am going to pull a Walter Block. "If it moves, privatize it.... if it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move... privatize it"
I advocate the privatization of all land, thus you are free to buy the land and have a rule which says "Person X (stalker) is not allowed on my property..... or use a magical machine which can see and hear everything inside my house and listen to me, which is too expensive for me to protect against"
What property is being damaged? What is this "privacy" you speak of? Have you read Defending The Undefendable yet?
Eugene:What is so wrong in demanding damages to be payed to the victim of such malicious act?
Eugene:If we demand the thief of a bubblegum to pay damages, even though the theft of a bubblegum barely hurt anyone,
Physical property was stolen, the store owner was damaged. As you can see, in the bubble gum example, I have pointed out specific property which was effected.
Eugene:then how can we not demand damages to be payed to someone whose life may have been ruined after his most intimate details were published for everyone to know and the bastard who did it happily continues to do the same to other people?
What property is being damaged? Are you saying someone can own value? Are you saying you could somehow own the way other people percieve you?
First of all I don't have this sacred assumption that the only illegal things should be harm to property. There are some things, though not many, which are so humiliating to a person that he is harmed a lot more than he would be harmed if some physical property of his was stolen. For example I would be a lot more upset if my girlfriend dumped me than if my bicycle was stolen. Now I of course don't think that we should make everything that harms us emotionally illegal. However I do think a significant harm to privacy should be illegal. There is a clear advantage in making it illegal. It will significantly reduce the number of people who spy on their neighbors and publish this information on the web for fun. That's a very big advantage already. Is there a disadvantage as well? Perhaps a less elegant theory of law, but that's not something that should be so important for its own sake.
Second of all, if the solutions to all of these problems is to banish such people from private lands, then your solution is not very different from the solution currently employed by the state. The result would be almost identical because you can then call such land with privacy law the United States, and the only difference would be that you'd expell people instead of putting them in jail. Its somewhat better, but not significantly better.
Eugene:First of all I don't have this sacred assumption that the only illegal things should be harm to property. There are some things, though not many, which are so humiliating to a person that he is harmed a lot more than he would be harmed if some physical property of his was stolen. For example I would be a lot more upset if my girlfriend dumped me than if my bicycle was stolen. Now I of course don't think that we should make everything that harms us emotionally illegal. However I do think a significant harm to privacy should be illegal. There is a clear advantage in making it illegal. It will significantly reduce the number of people who spy on their neighbors and publish this information on the web for fun. That's a very big advantage already. Is there a disadvantage as well? Perhaps a less elegant theory of law, but that's not something that should be so important for its own sake.
There is a very obvious answer to your question and that is that people don't need the state to seek reparations or punishment for violations of privacy.
Having said that, I question pure privacy; after all if someone who beats children in his own home/does other obnoxious activities in 'privacy' was never spied on, who would be able to intervene?
Except that my government has no legitimate claim to my house for instance (which was legitimately purchased with the deeds signed over to yours truly) yet they still get the right to tell me how I live (on my own property - not their property) and that I must pay taxes. If I was living on 'their' property ('they' do not legitimately own any property [including court houses, public streets, etc.] since all 'their' property is funded by tax) then they can 'banish' me or tax me at will so long as I have consented and am not being physically detained on 'their' property.
First of all I am not saying that surveillance should be illegal in all cases, only in cases where it is done for fun, and not in order to discover illegal activities.
Second of all, whether United States has a just claim on your house or not is not the point. The point is that if Texas for example was privately owned and all people who spied on others for no good reason would be expelled, then spying would be as a matter of illegal. So if as a land owner you would support expelling people who spy on others without good reason, then you are conceptually in favor of making spying illegal. That's how I see it at least.
Eugene:There are some things, though not many, which are so humiliating to a person that he is harmed a lot more than he would be harmed if some physical property of his was stolen.
He has no control over what other people think of him. He can only control what he thinks of what other people think of him. Humiliation is a mental abstraction, it has nothing to do with physical reality.
Eugene:Now I of course don't think that we should make everything that harms us emotionally illegal.
Of course not. What would an ad hoc theory of justice be if it wasn't arbitrary?
Eugene:Second of all, if the solutions to all of these problems is to banish such people from private lands, then your solution is not very different from the solution currently employed by the state.
I seriously can't tell if you are trolling at this point.
Eugene:First of all I am not saying that surveillance should be illegal in all cases, only in cases where it is done for fun, and not in order to discover illegal activities.
You cannot judge intent unless you are a mind reader.
Eugene:The point is that if Texas for example was privately owned and all people who spied on others for no good reason would be expelled, then spying would be as a matter of illegal.
No, it wouldn't be illegal. If all of the land in Texas was owned by individuals, there would be no state of Texas, it would just be a bunch of land owned by some people. And you might be disallowed from that land, or pursuing certain activities on that land, but it would have nothing to do with law whatsoever.
Look at it this way. If I come to your house, you can ask me to take off my shoes. If I do not, you can ask me to leave. This is a proper exercise of your property rights. This has nothing to do with law.
Eugene:First of all I am not saying that surveillance should be illegal in all cases, only in cases where it is done for fun, and not in order to discover illegal activities. Second of all, whether United States has a just claim on your house or not is not the point. The point is that if Texas for example was privately owned and all people who spied on others for no good reason would be expelled, then spying would be as a matter of illegal. So if as a land owner you would support expelling people who spy on others without good reason, then you are conceptually in favor of making spying illegal. That's how I see it at least.
...Ok, and what did you think about this:
'There is a very obvious answer to your question and that is that people don't need the state to seek reparations or punishment for violations of privacy.'
1. I don't advocate a state, I believe in anarchy. It doesn't mean that I think spying should be always legal. Whether PDA enforces this or the state doesn't matter.
2. Of course I can judge intent. Arbitrators would judge intent every time they would decide whether a murder was commited or a manslaughter. Intent is an important element of crime, and of course the court will have to understand what was the intent and the motive of the aggressor.
Eugene:2. Of course I can judge intent. Arbitrators would judge intent every time they would decide whether a murder was commited or a manslaughter. Intent is an important element of crime, and of course the court will have to understand what was the intent and the motive of the aggressor.
You can't know intent. It is impossible.
Eugene:First of all I don't have this sacred assumption that the only illegal things should be harm to property.
Also I would recommend reading up on, difference between crimes and vices, interpersonal comparsions of utility, and Rothbard's redhead examples.
Eugene:1. I don't advocate a state, I believe in anarchy. It doesn't mean that I think spying should be always legal.
Motive really isn't important. Thinking like that is how we have "hate crime" legislation. If someone is killed that's what matters, not their race.
Eugene: 1. So what if I can spy on my neighbor? Should I then spend half of my time spying on him just because he is such a pervert? He might not even care. Why not just sue the bastard and demand damages? 2. First of all its not so easy to treat stalkers as trespassers. You have to ask for this specifically from each land owner. Second of all do you imply that in current society stalkers should indeed be prosecuted? I somehow doubt that. Regarding your question. If someone follows you around all the time and curses you, then I'm sure most people would beat up that person. I can't prove it to you, but I am pretty convinced that no sane person will just let a stalker follow him around. 3. I prefer not to start a philosophical debate about semantics. Let's try to be practical. Do you believe that perverts who like to spy on people and publish intimate details about them on the internet for other perverts to see should be free to do so? I see only huge disadvantage in letting this behavior be unpunished. What is the advantage? 1. The point is that ubiquitous spying technology will lead to everyone spying on everyone. Just point the spy gadgets at your neighbors' houses and stream the live feed to the internet. If anyone wants to watch, they can. I don't think you realize what a "game-changer" that would be for civil society. 2. So what if it's "not as easy"? Many things aren't as "easy" for some people to do if they're not backed by a state. I see no reason why stalkers can't be prosecuted for trespassing in today's society - do you? While you may be "sure" and "pretty convinced" that most "sane" people would beat up a stalker, since you won't provide reasoning or evidence to back up that claim, I'm going to have to dismiss it. Sorry. 3. The thing is, I don't know what you mean by "practical". I also don't know what you mean by "pervert". My point is that semantics are at the very heart of this issue, just like they're at the very heart of every other issue. If two people can't agree on meanings for important words, then they won't be communicating with one another. They'll just be talking past each other. The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 5
1. The point is that ubiquitous spying technology will lead to everyone spying on everyone. Just point the spy gadgets at your neighbors' houses and stream the live feed to the internet. If anyone wants to watch, they can. I don't think you realize what a "game-changer" that would be for civil society.
2. So what if it's "not as easy"? Many things aren't as "easy" for some people to do if they're not backed by a state. I see no reason why stalkers can't be prosecuted for trespassing in today's society - do you? While you may be "sure" and "pretty convinced" that most "sane" people would beat up a stalker, since you won't provide reasoning or evidence to back up that claim, I'm going to have to dismiss it. Sorry.
3. The thing is, I don't know what you mean by "practical". I also don't know what you mean by "pervert". My point is that semantics are at the very heart of this issue, just like they're at the very heart of every other issue. If two people can't agree on meanings for important words, then they won't be communicating with one another. They'll just be talking past each other.
Eugene:There is a clear advantage in making it illegal. It will significantly reduce the number of people who spy on their neighbors and publish this information on the web for fun.
There is a clear advantage in prohibiting alcohol. It will significantly reduce the number of people who use alcohol. The is a clear advantage in making pot illegal. It will significantly reduce the number of people who use pot.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Technically, Mikachusetts, declaring something illegal won't per se significantly reduce the number of people who do it. But then again, most people use phrases like "prohibiting" and "making illegal" to really mean "threatening to hurt people if they do it".
Autolykos,
I was being sarcastic. Prohibiting acts via legislation does not reduce their occurence. It drives the acts underground and makes them dangerous. That was my point with drugs and alcohol.
mikachusetts:I was being sarcastic. Prohibiting acts via legislation does not reduce their occurence. It drives the acts underground and makes them dangerous. That was my point with drugs and alcohol.
I agree, and just because this is the stated intention of the law, does not mean that will be the actual outcome. This is why Law should be limited towards reimbursing you when Property Rights are broken (crimes), and NOT trying to preemptively ban non-crimes, or things which are looked down upon, but do not break any Property Rights (vices).
Good points, both of you. I would say, however, that the threat of punishment for engaging in activity X may well lead some people to refrain from it. It depends on how severe the punishment and (more importantly) how regular the enforcement would be.
Tex2002ans, keep in mind that pre-emptive banning results from an otherwise inefficient legal system. When there are too few courts, police, etc. for whatever reason (such as being monopolized by a single organization), the trend seems to be in favor of increasingly harsh punishments for those who are caught. The idea is to "make an example" of someone who happens to get caught in order to hopefully intimidate others into obedience. I think this approach has been used initially for what we'd call "real crimes". Once the genie has been let out of the proverbial bottle, control freaks try to extend it to things that they don't like.
I just didn't bring that up because it was already brought up in Eugene's previous thread here:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/23409/406342.aspx#406342
The point is that ubiquitous spying technology will lead to everyone spying on everyone. Just point the spy gadgets at your neighbors' houses and stream the live feed to the internet. If anyone wants to watch, they can. I don't think you realize what a "game-changer" that would be for civil society.
The purpose of Law is to protect Property Rights, not to try to come to some best "utilitarian" outcome.
So then make it against the rules on your property and try to convince others to make it against the rules on their property too.
Perhaps make (well) educated/informed guesses to intent, but you could never know the actual intent.
Eugene:So I am supposed to buy expensive spying equipment and attempt to spy on the pervert neighbor only discovering that he doesn't even care? When you can't touch property you are very restricted in your retaliation especially when you deal with psychopaths who couldn't care less about any punishment that is not physical.
Eugene:I don't necessarily accept that
Eugene:I could of course claim that some private information should be called property but then you will all tell me that information can't be property because it is not scarce. So I don't think I can convince you by using the very specific and limiting rules you set for me.
Eugene:Just as most libertarians don't want to see physical aggression, most libertarians could also agree to prohibit some sorts of non physical aggression. Just as there is a huge advantage in making physical aggression illegal, there can be also an advantage in making some non physical aggression illegal.
It seems that you're sneaking an extra premise into this thread, namely that the hypothetical spying equipment is now "expensive". Why are you sneaking in this extra premise?
I don't see how one would necessarily be literally unable to "touch property" in a stateless, free-market society. There may be plenty of people who are willing to physically retaliate against stalkers (real or perceived) - but those people will be held liable for the resulting medical bills should the stalkers choose to prosecute.
Since you didn't respond to my other two points, I take it that you have no (major) objections to them?
Eugene:First of all consumption of pot and alcohol are not acts of aggression. You can't aggress against yourself, that would be a contradiction. Second of all even though there might be some advantage to such law, there is a clear disadvantage as well, and that is that people who want to use pot and alcohol will not be able to. However I see a lot of advantages in prohibiting spying and stalking for fun, and no disadvantages whatsoever (except maybe that it complicates the law). Just as most libertarians don't want to see physical aggression, most libertarians could also agree to prohibit some sorts of non physical aggression. Just as there is a huge advantage in making physical aggression illegal, there can be also an advantage in making some non physical aggression illegal.
Who's to say whether consumption of all or specific drugs constitutes "aggression"?
Who's to say that, just because you see "clear advantages" and/or "clear disadvantages" in doing something or prohibiting something, everyone else must agree? Furthermore, who's to say that everyone must support/reject something based on its (perceived) advantages/disadvantages?
Just what definition of "aggression" are you using here? Can you explain how some "aggression" can be non-physical in your opinion?
Eugene:A person can be harmed emotionally.
Yes, but there is nothing illegal about this.
Eugene:For example it is quite obvious that we do not punish for the mere physical damage of a rape (which in most cases is minimal), but for the emotional damage.
Rape is the physical invasion of someone else's property (their body) without their consent. This is a crime. Just looking at you, looking at you from across the street, taking a picture of you, recording a video of you, while standing on my own property, using my own camera, or magical spying machine, is not a crime. Now once I step onto your property and begin doing these things, I would be trespassing. Trespassing is a crime, taking pictures/video of you is not a crime.
Eugene:What if a person could cause such emotional damage without even touching the woman, say with some gadget or just with a given sequence of words? Should we not punish him just because there was no physical proximity?
No, he should not be punished if he is on his own property or on the property of someone who is indifferent towards spying/stalking.
Eugene: Why should we not consider spying for no good reason as such act that is considered extremely damaging emotionally?
You are free to ban this on your property, but it would not be possible to ban it on his property, or on anyone's property who is indifferent. Let me stress this again, you are free to ban this on your property.
Eugene:Naturally we can't judge the exact emotional damage, so we go with the default just as we do with rapes.
I point you to my answer up there on the rape case.
Rape is the physical invasion of someone else's property (their body) without their consent.
Eugene:Who's to say that just because you see clear advantage in prohibiting physical aggression everyone else must agree?
No one. Of course, I haven't argued, even implicitly, that everyone must agree with me there.
Can you answer my questions directly now?
I guess my point is twofold:
1. With all due respect, I don't think you're doing a good job of convincing me (or anyone else) that "spying and stalking for fun" should be "illegal". I say this because I remain entirely unconvinced.
2. You seemed to be attempting a stronger argument than simply convincing me that I should support the "prohibition" of "spying and stalking for fun". Instead, you seemed to be arguing that libertarians (if not all people) must agree with you on this - or else. So I was simply giving the classic response of "Or else what?"
Eugene:The more values we share the easier will be the potential relations between us in an an-cap society.
Eugene:1. Then please reply to my previous post about the linguistic discovery. 2. No I definitely didn't argue for anything stronger.
FYI, you still haven't answered my questions directly.
Regarding your post about the "linguistic discovery", I fail to see how humiliation necessarily constitutes harm. Are you saying that a person is entitled to a positive or at least neutral emotional state at all times? If that's the case, then (for example) why shouldn't a person be able to sue his spouse for "emotional damages" if she suddenly decides to divorce him?