# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  "No Right to Privacy" by Walter Block

## Christian Liberty

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/w...ht-to-privacy/

First Paragraph quoted below, click the link to read the rest:




> Dont get me wrong. I am a BIG fan of Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Daniel Ellsberg and all other whistleblowers who have undermined the legitimacy of the state apparatus. I go further; no one is a greater supporter of these heroic men than me. So when I say there is no right to privacy, this should not be interpreted as in any way a criticism of them. Rather I am attempting to call into account numerous libertarians, all of whom should know better, when they write in support of these magnificent men and say things like: The liberty of which I write is the right to privacy: the right to be left alone. The Framers jealously and zealously guarded this right by imposing upon government agents intentionally onerous burdens before letting them invade it.


So, after reading the whole thing, do you agree with Block?  Why or why not?

(For the record, I'm not taking a position on this just yet.  Waiting to see the arguments.)

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

I believe there is a right to privacy simply because privacy is something that is logically guaranteed by a government that follows the Constitution as it was intended.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Did you read the article?

Block doesn't defend government surveilance.

----------


## Cabal

I agreed with his position before he even wrote the article. All legitimate rights essentially extend from property rights. Thus, the so-called right to privacy is only valid where you have a legitimate claim to property, or perhaps where there is some sort of contractual agreement. And of course, I also agree that the State has no legitimate rights or claims at all. I'm not sure what position he will be taking re: "The Peeping Tom," but I'd argue that Peeping Toms tend to violate property rights.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agreed with his position before he even wrote the article. All legitimate rights essentially extend from property rights. Thus, the so-called right to privacy is only valid where you have a legitimate claim to property, or perhaps where there is some sort of contractual agreement. And of course, I also agree that the State has no legitimate rights or claims at all. I'm not sure what position he will be taking re: "The Peeping Tom," but I'd argue that Peeping Toms tend to violate property rights.


Yeah, Walter defends the Peeping Tom.   I don't.  I know and understand that its hard to prove, but anyone who does that is a pervert, particularly if they do it to a child.

----------


## Cabal

> Yeah, Walter defends the Peeping Tom.   I don't.  I know and understand that its hard to prove, but anyone who does that is a pervert, particularly if they do it to a child.


I don't really think it's a matter of perversion or not--in other words, that's irrelevant to the discussion of property rights. It's an easy argument to make against the Peeping Tom if they are on your property. I could see the argument becoming a bit trickier if they are on their own property with like binoculars or something. Easy solution to this is be mindful of your windows.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't really think it's a matter of perversion or not--in other words, that's irrelevant to the discussion of property rights. It's an easy argument to make against the Peeping Tom if they are on your property. I could see the argument becoming a bit trickier if they are on their own property with like binoculars or something. Easy solution to this is be mindful of your windows.


Well, if a kid is careless and leaves their window open, and an adult creeper is looking in with binoculars, I honestly think society should look the other way if somebody decides to kill the creeper.

----------


## DamianTV

The Founding Fathers did not create the 4th Amendment to protect Criminals.  They put it in the Bill of Rights to protect the People from the Abuses of Govt and Others.

Walter Block can go suck a dick on YouTube if he believes there is no Right to Privacy.

----------


## Cabal

> Well, if a kid is careless and leaves their window open, and an adult creeper is looking in with binoculars, I honestly think society should look the other way if somebody decides to kill the creeper.


What an equitable society that would be.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Yes, I agree with Mr. Brock.  I did not really think of it this way until reading his article today.  It does make sense that as a positive right, "privacy" cannot exist and so it cannot be protected.  Of course your "property" is protected and if you have your property violated, you might have some "private" information on that property and so your property rights are violated if someone "steals" information you have been concealing on your property. 

As far as this crazy side issue of naked children, there was a very famous naked child picture that won a number of awards back during the Vietnam war.  Maybe you've seen the picture of the naked girl running from the napalm attack who had ripped off her burning clothes and was running naked down the street?  It's been long ruled that naked children are not "porn" if there is no sexual activity (we can argue about "porn" later...).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Founding Fathers did not create the 4th Amendment to protect Criminals.  They put it in the Bill of Rights to protect the People from the Abuses of Govt and Others.
> 
> Walter Block can go suck a dick on YouTube if he believes there is no Right to Privacy.


You obviously didn't read the article, did you?

----------


## bolil

I agree so far as the scum bag individuals that compose the state have no greater right to privacy than us 'mundanes'.  The right of privacy, however, is absurd to me.  What, shall I close my eyes whenever you come strolling along?

We certainly have an ability to be private, some thoughts I do not utter.  But a right?  If I say a thing, do a thing, perform a thing that can be witnessed I have forfeited that right and I do not believe rights can be forfeited.

Of course, I am an idealist and despite my proffessing these things human experience seems to dictate that a right to privacy is paramount.


As soon as a word leaves your mouth it becomes vibration, do you own that vibration.  Likewise with radition that is picked up by sight.  No, it is impossible.  You DON'T own your voice as soon as you cast it forth, it becomes a general condition at that point.  Like wise with light radiated or reflected by your body.  The best you can do is protect these things, if they are worth protecting.  Then agian I would abolish the state in all of its forms, and without the jackbooted pigs of the state would the question really be worth asking?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But suppose a private individual were to invade our privacy without violating our private property rights. Would he have a right to do that? Yes, at least insofar as I understand the libertarian perspective. The paparazzi have a right to take pictures of movie stars, professional athletes, without permission, provided only they do not violate private property rights


Then you do not own yourself, the primary, first and foremost piece of "private property" that we all own.




> But private incursions into privacy, as long as achieved without private property rights violations, are licit under libertarian law.


Bull$#@!.

Isn't this the guy who made the painfully baffling speech on abortion in Tampa last year?

Yup, it was:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Ron-Paul-rally

Just some more wrong headed thinking that says tyranny is just fine as long as it is followed by "Corp." or "LLC".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I have long agreed with Dr Block on this.   Real rights cannot conflict with each other.  This imaginary "right to privacy" inherently violates my right, for example, to look in the direction of Jones' house when Jones' wife inadvertently left her window open while dressing.  My looking clearly didn't violate Jones' wife's rights, as I didn't remotely infringe on her person or property.  She failed in her responsibility to close the streetward-facing window if she believed no one outside should see her in a state of undress.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Then you do not own yourself, the primary, first and foremost piece of "private property" that we all own.


incorrect.  You absolutely do own that property.  With owning that property comes the responsibility to take care of it if you want it to remain in a certain state.  "Society" does not owe you that.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> incorrect.  You absolutely do own that property.  With owning that property comes the responsibility to take care of it if you want it to remain in a certain state.  "Society" does not owe you that.


So, if I practice due diligence to prevent incursions into my privacy, then I have that "right", correct?

----------


## Cabal

> Then you do not own yourself, the primary, first and foremost piece of "private property" that we all own.


Are you suggesting that someone who does nothing more than take someone's picture in public is a violation of self-ownership?

If so, that makes zero sense to me.

----------


## RickyJ

If you have no right to privacy, then you can't sue or complain when you find a bug or camera in your house that is being used to spy on you by whoever. The Constitution says that people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches. Collecting your every word without a warrant is indeed unreasonable and is not  used to protect anyone, but to control people. We the people should be in control of our government, not the government in control of us. Like Jimmy Carter recently said, "America has no functioning democracy today."

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Are you suggesting that someone who does nothing more than take someone's picture in public is a violation of self-ownership?
> 
> If so, that makes zero sense to me.


In this day and age, yes, yes it is.

The damage that can be done, with just one image matched to a name, is manifest in today's surveillance society.

You have no right to publicly post or in any way broadcast or use pictures of me, my family or my property without my explicit consent.

----------


## bolil

Yes, you own yourself, but you do not own the vibrations cast by your voice nor the light reflected by your body.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yes, you own yourself, but you do not own the vibrations cast by your voice nor the light reflected by your body.


That is the only way you can be perceived in this realm, thus, you do not own yourself, using that argument.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So, if I practice due diligence to prevent incursions into my privacy, then I have that "right", correct?


Sort of.  If you, for example, build a fence around your property, I have no right to climb onto or over it.  This is more accurately a property right, though-it just happens to protect privacy at the same time.

----------


## RickyJ

> In this day and age, yes, yes it is.
> 
> The damage that can be done, with just one image matched to a name, is manifest in today's surveillance society.
> 
> You have no right to publicly post or in any way broadcast or use pictures of me, my family or my property without my explicit consent.


If you are in a public place then you have lost the right to privacy of your image.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That is the only way you can be perceived in this realm, thus, you do not own yourself, using that argument.


Incorrect.  Not being able to own syllables you utter or your image has no bearing on your self-ownership status.  To do that, you would have to be able to control others' minds-and on this planet, there is no peaceful or reasonable way to do that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

So far I have yet to see a convincing argument that Block is wrong on this issue.  And Anti Federalist, I respect you a lot, but I think bringing Block's completely unrelated views on evictionism into this was unnecessary.  Walter being right or wrong on one thing has no bearing on whether he is right or wrong on another thing.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sort of.  If you, for example, build a fence around your property, I have no right to climb onto or over it.  This is more accurately a property right, though-it just happens to protect privacy at the same time.


Well, let's say that I installed a system that scrambled light and radio waves in such a way that no photos or electronic "data" could enter or leave my property.

You could freely walk your physical being onto and off of my property, but you could collect nothing in the form of a photo or electronic image or data.
*
All that it would do is protect my privacy.*

Have I fufilled enough due diligence to claim a right to privacy then?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you are in a public place then you have lost the right to privacy of your image.


This^^  That has long been both common knowledge/common sense and law.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So far I have yet to see a convincing argument that Block is wrong on this issue.  And Anti Federalist, I respect you a lot, but I think bringing Block's completely unrelated views on evictionism into this was unnecessary.  Walter being right or wrong on one thing has no bearing on whether he is right or wrong on another thing.


I as I do you.

Feel free to think what you want, however.

I think this is a dangerous road to go down, I also think Block is as wrong as he can be, and I find his views on evictionism to very relevant and germane to the subject, since they all revolve around property rights.

----------


## RickyJ

> Well, if a kid is careless and leaves their window open, and an adult creeper is looking in with binoculars, I honestly think society should look the other way if somebody decides to kill the creeper.


Kill? The "crime" here, while perverted, hurts no one. Killing someone for such behavior would be cruel and unusual punishment.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well, let's say that I installed a system that scrambled light and radio waves in such a way that no photos or electronic "data" could enter or leave my property.
> 
> You could freely walk your physical being onto and off of my property, but you could collect nothing in the form of a photo or electronic image or data.
> *
> All that it would do is protect my privacy.*
> 
> Have I fufilled enough due diligence to claim a right to privacy then?


Yes, and very well at that!  Well, more accurately-you've secured your privacy sufficiently and in such a way that the only way someone could violate it is by violating one of your real rights.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This^^  That has long been both common knowledge/common sense and law.


And given the current state of technology, *and* the surveillance grid, I think this idea needs to change.

This is the argument that cops and tyrants alike use to abuse us every day, "you have no right to privacy in public place".

It is a false supposition IMO, one that has been foisted off on us without question, just like "driving is a privilege".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I as I do you.
> 
> Feel free to think what you want, however.
> 
> I think this is a dangerous road to go down, I also think Block is as wrong as he can be, and I find his views on evictionism to very relevant and germane to the subject, since they all revolve around property rights.


I have to admit, Block's "Evictionism" is on shaky logical ground-and have never really agreed with it. (Murray had the same problem)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I as I do you.
> 
> Feel free to think what you want, however.
> 
> I think this is a dangerous road to go down, I also think Block is as wrong as he can be, and I find his views on evictionism to very relevant and germane to the subject, since they all revolve around property rights.


I don't see the comparison, honestly.  I mean, I know they're both about property rights, but I'm honestly not seeing any direct link.




> Kill? The "crime" here, while perverted, hurts no one. Killing someone for such behavior would be cruel and unusual punishment.


You think it doesn't hurt the child?

I'm kind of being hyperbolic here: but I view pedophiles essentially as animals.  I couldn't serve on the jury in question.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I have to admit, Block's "Evictionism" is on shaky logical ground-and have never really agreed with it. (Murray had the same problem)


Rothbard, for all the great things he did, had one of the dumbest abortion positions ever.

Block's view on abortion is actually intelligent, I just reject it.  Rothbard's is just stupid and juvenile.

----------


## Christian Liberty

And...

I respect what Rothbard said on basically every other issue.  I don't think he was thinking straight when he wrote about abortion.  He essentially just went with the far left in rejection of logic.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And given the current state of technology, *and* the surveillance grid, I think this idea needs to change.
> 
> This is the argument that cops and tyrants alike use to abuse us every day, "you have no right to privacy in public place".
> 
> It is a false supposition IMO, one that has been foisted off on us without question, just like "driving is a privilege".


Well, the proper way around that is to eliminate public property (which Block gets into in his book about roads/public goods).  Once you acknowledge that property x is "public", you naturally surrender your privacy on it.  This is inherent in all things "public".  There literally is no middle ground on this issue.

*pub·lic*

[puhb-lik]  Show IPA
*adjective**1.*of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as awhole: _public funds; a public nuisance._

*2.*done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole: _publicprosecution._

*3.*open to all persons: _a public meeting._

*4.*of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community ornation, especially as a government officer: _a public official._

*5.*maintained at the public expense and under public control: _apublic library; a public road._

ETA: Driving is a privilege to the extent that you drive on others' property.  If you drive on your own property, it's a right.
ETA2: It should also be noted that without public roads, you couldn't be randomly SWATed (or at least the risk would be cut dramatically)-as the $#@! team would have to act outside the law just getting onto private property without just cause.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And...
> 
> I respect what Rothbard said on basically every other issue.  I don't think he was thinking straight when he wrote about abortion.  He essentially just went with the far left in rejection of logic.


Actually, he wasn't really "left".  It's just that his presuppositions were wrong-and unlibertarian IMO.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Rothbard, for all the great things he did, had one of the dumbest abortion positions ever.
> 
> Block's view on abortion is actually intelligent, I just reject it.  *Rothbard's is just stupid and juvenile.*


How is it worse than Block's? (much less "stupid and juvenile")  They're extremely similar-Rothbard just didn't have time (or didn't take the time, not sure) to develop his thoughts as well as he should have.

----------


## DamianTV

> "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us 
> by the equal rights of others.  I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is 
> often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."


When the 4th was written, technology was not thought of as a means to observe people.  So for me to be able to observe another persons actions, it would have to be done by me giving up my privacy in exchange to the person whose privacy I as observing.  What the advances of Technology have resulted in is that people en masse can be observed without being able to responsively observe the observer.  Had the Founding Fathers been psychic and able to predict how technology could evolve to allow the remote observiation of an individual, the 4th Amendment would have been strengthened beyond belief.

There are also some assumptions about the 4th that people make that are not truly so.




> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[


The first thing that is assumed is that one only has the protections of the constitution in their own home.  This is not true.  The constitution also protects us from Unreasonable actions by the Govt in public.  For example, while driving from somewhere to somewhere else and being constantly monitored by the Govt in order to convict the driver of the first victimless infraction they possibly can.  Thus, we have the protections of the Constitution in Public

The second is that communicating with another individual does not make those communications public.  I send you a letter.  You send me a response letter.  Doesnt matter what the subject is, the fact that we communicated does NOT make those communications Public.

The intention of the 4th Amendment was intended to protect us from the Abuses of information collected on us by limiting the way in which information that can not help but to be observed can be used against a Person.  If a cop sees a person walk into their home, the Cop can not assume that just because they are trying to leave the public eye that they are intending on committing a crime.  Probable Cause is needed and efforts to make ones actions Private do not consititue Probable Cause.

As I stated in my previous post, the 4th Amendment was not put in place by the Founding Fathers with the idea of only protecting Criminals.  It was created to protect the people from abuses by the Govt.  Now if you want to say that Privacy is not a naturally occuring Right, I am not challenging that.  What I will challenge is that Govt is also NOT naturally occuring, and thus, needs to have limitations imposed on it.  The constitution basically starts off that Govt being a non naturally occuring entity is completly restricted from doing ANYTHING.  Then it extends specific permissions as to what the Govt is allowed to do.  It also clearly states what it is NOT allowed to do.  So the restriction of a Non Naturally Occuring Entity to a Non Naturally Occuring Right is only limiting what the Non Naturally Occuring Entity can NOT do.

-Rep me if you want, but I think my Rep Power has a bit more punch than yours, and I will return the favor.

For the record: $#@! that pundit for Govt Control Walter Block.

---

Edit: Point of clarification.

What I do not believe the 4th Amendment does is to prevent a Cop from happenstantially observing a person walking into their house.  What the 4th Amendment DOES do is restrict resultant actions of a person based on those observations.  I do not believe that this grants permission to the Govt to observe a person every time they enter or exit any point where an indivdual could reasonably expect to be not be observed.

---

Edit #2




> You obviously didn't read the article, did you?


I did read the article, but this is not the first time this has come up.

If we wanted to extend this, we could also say that Money is not a Positive Right either because Money does not naturally exist.  Doesnt matter because there are still LIMITS imposed on what and how the Govt regulates Money, although they dont pay any attention to those clauses either what so ever.

Problem is that Govt does NOT observe ANY limits placed upon it, regardless if those things that are limited are Naturally Existing, Positive, or what ever.  Govt behaves as if it has NO limits, does what ever the hell it wants, serves a different set of authority than the authority of the people over the Govt.

The biggest problem that I have is that he is trying to define away Privacy in general by defining it as not naturally occuring.  Now not only does that piss me off, but I see the doors and potential abuses that can result from this.  Great, he thinks Snowden and others are Heroes.  But saying Privacy doesnt exist because it isnt Positive undermines the efforts of Snowden and Manning by concluding "yeah theyre great and all, but you never really had the protections of the Consititution or the Law to begin with so what do their actions matter?  Get over it and get used to being observed because the Right is not Positive, thus, youre screwed."

Funny how that always gets turned right the $#@! around when Govt does something it does NOT want you to know about.  Project Whatever?  Yeah, thats Classified, cuz WE have the Right to CLASSIFY but you DO NOT have the Right to Privacy because it isnt a Positive Right.  Oh yeah, your PROPERTY?  Since we TAX you for it, it all belongs to us anyway, so you dont even have a Right to PROPERTY either.

----------


## Theocrat

Walter Block says that "we have no right to privacy." He's making an absolute claim there, and the only person who can make absolute claims (especially about rights) is God (which is an absolute claim, I know, but, in Christ, I am covenantally connected to God, so I can speak from His authority and not my own).

----------


## DamianTV

Thankfully, Walter Block did not write the Bill of Rights.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Fight for your Privacy as if your LIFE is on the line, because it is.


...

I owe ya a rep, I'm out.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Actually, he wasn't really "left".  It's just that his presuppositions were wrong-and unlibertarian IMO.


Well, I use the word "Left" relatively literally, but Rothbard just went with radical feminist rhetoric of "Parasites" and "Women's rights" and whatever.  Stuff you'd get from the left.



> How is it worse than Block's? (much less "stupid and juvenile")  They're extremely similar-Rothbard just didn't have time (or didn't take the time, not sure) to develop his thoughts as well as he should have.


Walter Block actually thought through his position on property and took Rothbard's ideas about property to a rational and logical conclusion, namely, that you can only evict, you cannot kill.  You evict tresspassers, you don't kill them, the only way you can kill them is if you CAN'T evict them without killing them.  I disagree with Block's assertion that the unborn is a tresspasser, although I can understand why he would think that, particularly in the case of rape (Note that I still disagree with the argument in the case of rape, understanding it does not corrolate with agreement.)

Rothbard just basically said "You can get an abortion whenever you want" which is obviously unlibertarian.  That would be like saying you could kill a five year old who is in your house without your permission even if all it would really take to get them to leave is a kick out of the door.  That's stupid and juvenile, IMO.  Even for me.  And I'm pretty radically "Right is right and wrong is wrong" when property is concerned.




> Walter Block says that "we have no right to privacy." He's making an absolute claim there, and the only person who can make absolute claims (especially about rights) is God (which is an absolute claim, I know, but, in Christ, I am covenantally connected to God, so I can speak from His authority and not my own).


Not true.  An unregenerate atheist can still say "The sky is blue" and he'd be correct.  Walter Block may be wrong here, but he's not wrong just because he's not God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And given the current state of technology, *and* the surveillance grid, I think this idea needs to change.
> 
> This is the argument that cops and tyrants alike use to abuse us every day, "you have no right to privacy in public place".
> 
> It is a false supposition IMO, one that has been foisted off on us without question, just like "driving is a privilege".


I think privacy would be much less of a big deal in a libertarian society in which only a few things were illegal.  Don't get me wrong, I still wouldn't want security cameras in my house, even if I were absolutely guaranteed to never have anyone but Ron Paul in charge of the country ever, but the problem here is totalitarian government in general, not JUST surveilance.

----------


## Contumacious

> [URL]there-is-no-right-to-privacy


Disagree

We have a  right to privacy.

The SCOTUS said it best in:


The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

*Griswold v. Connecticut - 381 U.S. 479 (1965)*

.

----------


## Christian Liberty

And you cite a constitutionally BS SCOTUS decision to defend your view?

Classic.

Please edit your quote: I posted Walter Block's article for consideration.  I didn't say I agreed with Walter Block.

----------


## Contumacious

> And you cite a constitutionally BS SCOTUS decision to defend your view?
> .


Griswold v. Connecticut - 381 U.S. 479 (1965) is a BS opinion because ..........>>>>>>>


.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Griswold v. Connecticut - 381 U.S. 479 (1965) is a BS opinion because ..........>>>>>>>
> 
> 
> .


The 10th amendment.

----------


## DamianTV

> I think privacy would be much less of a big deal in a libertarian society in which only a few things were illegal.  Don't get me wrong, I still wouldn't want security cameras in my house, even if I were absolutely guaranteed to never have anyone but Ron Paul in charge of the country ever, but the problem here is totalitarian government in general, not JUST surveilance.


Totalitarian Govts are typically, but not always, Facist.  Facist meaning that they are a merger of State and Private Corporations.  Companies have more influence over the Govt than the People.  The thing is that the Abuses that can result from Surveillance can come from both Govt and Corporations.  For example, African Americans in Detroit and "Redlining".  Another example, Health Insurance wants to know everything about you so they can charge you more, not just on if you smoke or not, but based on exactly what you buy at the Grocery Store.  And they are powerful enough to get the Govt to pass laws that allow them to do it.  Health Privacy?  Doesnt exist any more, but I certainly dont believe that we dont have a Right to it.

The thing is, Privacy IS being eliminated, one step at a time.  What is under attack here that I have the biggest problem with is the existence of the Right, period.  Each bit of Privacy that is eliminated is further and further control.  Look at the Schools (Indoctrination Centres) that require GPS Tracking of Students.  Students are treated as Human Livestock, Cattle.  Homework is another measure of the extenstions of the Power of the Educational System.  We, the Educational System can demand that you perform the desired actions for us during your free time while NOT in our facilities.  We, the Auto Insurance Providers have the right to know everything about your car.  Where it is at, when your last oil change was, how fast you drive, and especially whether or not you wear your seat belt because we insure your car, so we have a Right to know everything about what you do with YOUR car because we insure it.

But that isnt really what is going on.  What is really going on is Zero Privacy = Complete Obedience.  And the elimination of the very concept of Privacy is a method that eliminates the respect for the Restrictions that Privacy would impose.  Especially with a completely Facist Govt.

----------


## WM_in_MO

I do give respect to Block any time he comes up with a new way of viewing things. it's really the only way we resolve the ideology.

I'll have to read this article a few more times before I can decide.

DAMN YOU WALTER BLOCK FOR MAKING ME THINK!

----------


## Contumacious

> The 10th amendment.


*Wut?
*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Walter Block says that "we have no right to privacy." He's making an absolute claim there, and the only person who can make absolute claims (especially about rights) is God (which is an absolute claim, I know, but, in Christ, I am covenantally connected to God, so I can speak from His authority and not my own).


There is no such right that anyone can _prove_.  This is tacit in Block's statement.  His work in this area is focused on proving if these sort of things do or don't exist.  We know that there are no positive rights-only negative rights.  Even things listed as positive rights in classical liberal literature (the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; rights in property, etc) are better expressed in the negative: Thou shalt not steal, take another man's life, etc. 

And as I noted before, a "right to privacy" conflicts with other rights (such as the right to look about, travel, etc) so much that it simply can't be a legitimate right.  One of the few things I agree with SCOTUS and the inferior courts on is their consistent rulings that there is no right to privacy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Totalitarian Govts are typically, but not always, Facist.  Facist meaning that they are a merger of State and Private Corporations.  Companies have more influence over the Govt than the People.  The thing is that the Abuses that can result from Surveillance can come from both Govt and Corporations.  For example, African Americans in Detroit and "Redlining".  Another example, Health Insurance wants to know everything about you so they can charge you more, not just on if you smoke or not, but based on exactly what you buy at the Grocery Store.  And they are powerful enough to get the Govt to pass laws that allow them to do it.  Health Privacy?  Doesnt exist any more, but I certainly dont believe that we dont have a Right to it.
> 
> The thing is, Privacy IS being eliminated, one step at a time.  What is under attack here that I have the biggest problem with is the existence of the Right, period.  Each bit of Privacy that is eliminated is further and further control.  Look at the Schools (Indoctrination Centres) that require GPS Tracking of Students.  Students are treated as Human Livestock, Cattle.  Homework is another measure of the extenstions of the Power of the Educational System.  We, the Educational System can demand that you perform the desired actions for us during your free time while NOT in our facilities.  We, the Auto Insurance Providers have the right to know everything about your car.  Where it is at, when your last oil change was, how fast you drive, and especially whether or not you wear your seat belt because we insure your car, so we have a Right to know everything about what you do with YOUR car because we insure it.
> 
> But that isnt really what is going on.  What is really going on is Zero Privacy = Complete Obedience.  And the elimination of the very concept of Privacy is a method that eliminates the respect for the Restrictions that Privacy would impose.  Especially with a completely Facist Govt.


Now you're on the right track.  Disrespecting the boundaries a person has clearly erected is a violation of rights in property (not in "privacy").  You'll make a much better case against spying if you keep developing your argument that-a way.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thankfully, Walter Block did not write the Bill of Rights.


Nothing Block said contradicts the BoR.  It is actually quite in line with the BoR.  That is a list of negative rights ("thou shalt nots") intended to be aimed at the government, not people in general.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Nothing Block said contradicts the BoR.  It is actually quite in line with the BoR.  That is a list of negative rights ("thou shalt nots") intended to be aimed at the government, not people in general.


But law is directed at individuals, mostly.

"Shalt nots" abound.

Now, I'd be very happy with "Thou shalt not commit aggression or fraud against another person's property or person" and leave it at that.

Aggressively databasing and collating and collecting information about somebody *is* an act of aggression against that person.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *I think privacy would be much less of a big deal in a libertarian society in which only a few things were illegal*.  Don't get me wrong, I still wouldn't want security cameras in my house, even if I were absolutely guaranteed to never have anyone but Ron Paul in charge of the country ever, but the problem here is totalitarian government in general, not JUST surveilance.


Possibly, but the issue is moot, because we are a long way from that.

Three Felonies a Day.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Possibly, but the issue is moot, because we are a long way from that.
> 
> Three Felonies a Day.


Yeah, in this society I honestly wouldn't worry about the nuances of whether a law violates the non-aggression principle when the intent of the law is to protect privacy.  We're so far beyond that point...

The fact remains that, in a real libertarian society, posting your picture on the internet without your consent shouldn't be a crime under normal conditions.  

Note that I said less of a deal, not not a big deal.  I'm fairly comfortable with what Walter Block is suggesting, in a minarchist or ancap society.  I'm not comfortable with implementing it now.

Right now, I view us as fundamentally being at war.  It could be argued that playing dirty during war is justified.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah, Walter defends the Peeping Tom.   I don't.  I know and understand that its hard to prove, but anyone who does that is a pervert, particularly if they do it to a child.


I suppose Walter Block is okay with the guys who put cameras on their shoes and then post "upskirt" pics?  Or the peeping tom using a high powered telescope?  I agree that famous people don't have some right not to be photographed in public.  That's simply part of the price of being famous.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah, in this society I honestly wouldn't worry about the nuances of whether a law violates the non-aggression principle when the intent of the law is to protect privacy.  We're so far beyond that point...
> 
> The fact remains that, in a real libertarian society, posting your picture on the internet without your consent shouldn't be a crime under normal conditions.  
> 
> Note that I said less of a deal, not not a big deal.  I'm fairly comfortable with what Walter Block is suggesting, in a minarchist or ancap society.  I'm not comfortable with implementing it now.
> *
> Right now, I view us as fundamentally being at war.  It could be argued that playing dirty during war is justified.*


That's a great way to put it.  +rep.  IMO, the State is always and ever at war with "Us" (usually, just the citizenry, but it's been expanded worldwide in the last century).  As AF would say, War On Us.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I suppose Walter Block is okay with the guys who put cameras on their shoes and then post "upskirt" pics?*  Or the peeping tom using a high powered telescope?  I agree that famous people don't have some right not to be photographed in public.  That's simply part of the price of being famous.


He hasn't addressed this specifically AFAIK, but it seems to fall under "Male Chauvanist Pig" http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf <-page 13 in "DTU" here.

----------


## twomp

Sounds to me like Block is trying to sell a book (which I have no problem with) but it's kind of like me saying, I am against government surveillance but for different reasons then you. Enter reason here ............

p.s. buy my book for more info...

----------


## Peace Piper

Could everyone that believes there's no right to privacy please:

1. Post your real name
2. Post your email address and password
3. Post your home address (po boxes not allowed)
4. Post your Social Slave #

Thanks in advance.
That would be a start, there will be other requests.
This statist authoritarian bs about "no privacy" started hitting the Bigtime right after 911. It was BS then and it's BS now.
The 4th amendment is all about privacy. NO ONE will invade my privacy. That's a promise.

*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized*

PS: Do you have blinds on your windows? Why?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Could everyone that believes there's no right to privacy please:
> 
> 1. Post your real name
> 2. Post your email address and password
> 3. Post your home address (po boxes not allowed)
> 4. Post your Social Slave #
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> That would be a start, there will be other requests.
> ...


Someone didn't read the thread and has no understanding whatsoever of the arguments he disagrees with. :P

----------


## Cabal

> *The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized*


Persons = property.
Houses = property.
Papers = property.
Effects = property.
Unreasonable search/seizure = initiation of aggression = property.

In any case, rights don't come from a piece of paper, nor do they extend from the State, in the philosophy Block is discussing.

You seem to be misunderstanding the argument entirely, and in your defense, perhaps that's partially the failure of Block. Block (and Rothbard) isn't saying you have no right to property, or that you have no right to not be subjected to the imitation of aggression against your property. He's saying that beyond property rights, there are no 'privacy' rights that are not already included in property rights, and that your rights end where another's begin. For example, he's saying you cannot rightfully prohibit someone from using their own body and property to take a picture of you if you have made yourself available to their vision and camera, and so long as they are not invading your property in order to take said picture. As, to prohibit such use of another's property would necessarily imply initiation of force to do so, and thus be infringing on their property.

Similarly the supposed 'right of free speech' is also superfluous in this way. There is no 'right to free speech' as the right to use your body and freely speak is already an extension of property rights. However, your right to use your property (your body) to freely speak doesn't supersede another's property rights. So, for instance, I can't expect to freely communicate anything I want on this forum, as this forum is essentially private property and the owners have certain rules that I implicitly agree to abiding by when I am communicating here. This doesn't infringe on my own rights just as someone having their picture taken out in public isn't an infringement on their rights.

As for the inane demand you posted, I have every right to not comply with your demand. You cannot rightfully compel me to act, or do anything. This isn't about a right to information, or privacy though--it's about property. You have no right to force me to provide you with anything. None of this is at odds with Block's position.

On this point, Rothbard continues:




> At the present time, the courts distinguish between persons “in the public eye” who are adjudged not to have a right to privacy against being mentioned in the public press, and “private” persons who are considered to have such a right. And yet, such distinctions are surely fallacious. To the libertarian, everyone has the same right in his person and in the goods which he finds, inherits, or buys—and it is illegitimate to make distinctions in property right between one group of people and another. If there were some sort of “right to privacy,” then simply being mentioned widely in the press (i.e., previous losses of the “right”) could scarcely warrant being deprived of such right completely. No, the only proper course is to maintain that no one has any spurious “right to privacy,” or right not to be mentioned publicly; *while everyone has the right to protect his property against invasion. No one can have a property right in the knowledge in someone else’s head.*
> 
>      In recent years, Watergate and the Pentagon Papers have brought to the fore such questions as privacy the “privileges” of newspapermen, and the “public’s right to know.” Should, for example, a newspaperman have the right to “protect his sources of information” in court? Many people claim that newspapermen have such a right, basing that claim either (a) on special “privileges” of confidentiality allegedly accruing to newspapermen, lawyers, doctors, priests and psychoanalysts, and/or (b) on the “public’s right to know” and hence on the widest possible knowledge as disseminated in the press. And yet, it should be clear by this point that both such claims are spurious. On the latter point, no one person or group of people (and therefore “the public”) has the right to know anything. *They have no right to knowledge which other people have and refuse to disseminate.* For if a man has the absolute right to disseminate knowledge inside his head, he also has the corollary right not to disseminate that knowledge. There is no “right to know”; *there is only the right of the knower to either disseminate his knowledge or to keep silent*. Neither can any particular profession, be it newsmen or physicians, claim any particular right of confidentiality which is not possessed by anyone else. *Rights to one’s liberty and property must be universal.*


However, in the same way, if I have knowledge about your name, your address, or whatever, you have no rightful say in whether I share this knowledge or not. And this is where things tend to segue into the IP debate.

EDIT: However, if I were to engage in slander, libel, defamation, harassment, invasion, fraud, etc. that would be another matter.

I have blinds on my windows because my windows and the property behind them are mine, and it is my right to shade those windows if I so choose. The fact that you even asked this question demonstrates that either a) didn't read the article in the OP, and/or b) you didn't fully comprehend the position being conveyed. Block never made the argument that you have no right to shade your own windows.

Now there are negative rights (which are also, of course, extensions of property rights) that many tend to regard as 'privacy rights', such as the right to not be harassed, the right to not be invaded, the right to not be stalked, etc. 

Moreover, I think one of the main points he was making in this article, is that a free market would be better equipped to provide more privacy to those who prefer thoroughly guarded privacy, and that the State is a violator (not a protector) of privacy. As well, he's taking issue with Judge Napolitano's contention that there is some other natural right to privacy that is not already covered by basic property rights. I also suspect he's displeased with the Judge's contention that the State has the right to do anything, "narrowest of circumstances" or not; or that only through the Framer's words should we be protected from the State.

----------


## DamianTV

When the State can tax you for any property that you have already paid for in full, and confiscate it for failure to pay your Property Tax, it was never really your property to begin with.

Mundanes can not actually own Property.  Thus, Mundanes have NO property Rights.  Thus, Mundanes have NO RIGHTS WHAT SO EVER.

----------


## Weston White

While personal privacy is conjoined with personal property, privacy is a right and it bears much more as an individual’s medium for manifesting thought and expression than it does upon their property.  When we talk about privacy we are really talking about tangible versus intangible; and certainly personal property does pertains to that, while, property is already covered under its own set of protective rights, as is speech, religion, defense, etc.  Privacy is really about maintaining the confidentiality in one’s affairs, arrangements, and obligations (e.g., "Were are you heading?"; "What are you up to?"; "What goes on in your bedroom at night?"; "What did you eat for dinner?"; "Have you been drinking or doing smack?"; "How much money do you make?"; "Are you a terrorist?"; etc.)  To assert that privacy is really a benefit of the wealthy, while undeserving upon the poor is absolutely asinine.  Overall the article seems to play much on semantics.

And hence, privacy is the right to uphold silence, to not incriminate, to not beset guilt or innocence, and to maintain indifference.

----------


## Peace Piper

> Someone didn't read the thread and has no understanding whatsoever of the arguments he disagrees with. :P


Oh I read the article and my "understanding" is different than yours. 
I think he's a clown, you don't. No problem.

*Privacy is a benefit, not a right. It is a benefit that the market, when and if it is freed, will confer on those of us who wish it.
--Walter Block*
If that's what you want to believe, believe it. Don't expect me to go along.

----------


## Occam's Banana

Feeding the Abscess posted about this same Block article a couple of weeks ago: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght-to-Privacy




> Thankfully, Walter Block did not write the Bill of Rights.


Block was not addressing the Bill of Rights. Here is what I had to say on this subject in FtA's thread:




> 1) Block was addressing whether "privacy" should be considered a "right" under libertarian theory  - NOT under the U.S. Constitution (which overlaps - but neither  subsumes nor is subsumed by - libertarian theory). Hence, any  "penumbras" or "non-enumerations" with respect to the Constitution are  simply not relevant to Block's argument. Block could simply reply, "The  U.S. Constitution does not and can not trump libertarian theory. If the  Constitution conflicts with libertarian theory properly understood, then  so much the worse for the Constitution!"
> 
> 2)  Block's argument is that "privacy" is not a "right" at all (except  in the anti-libertarian "positive" sense) - so even if  the U.S.  Constitution (or NATO, or the UN, or whatever) explicitly  enumerated  such a right, Block would not be impressed. He could simply reply, "So  what? The UN  has specifically stated that the (positive) Rights to  Jobs, Health Care and Education  (among others) are HUMAN RIGHTS. But  are these things really 'rights' just because some statist bureaucracy  says they are? I rather think not ..."
> 
> I would further point out that the U.S. Constitution is NOT in any way  to be properly understood as a grant of rights ("penumbric", enumerated,  non-enumerated or otherwisee) to the people. It is a set of  restrictions laid upon the U.S. federal government. There is absolutely no  need to create or invoke any "right to privacy" (supposedly to be found  within the Constitution) in order to condemn the U.S. government's  policies in this area. For example, the NSA surveillance programs are  simply not authorized under the Consitution. There is no need to conjure  up any superfluous "right to privacy" in order to show this.
> 
> In fact, I would go so far as to say that the whole of the Bill of  Rights is entirely superfluous. There is no need for a First Amendment,  for example - nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government  given any authority whatsoever to limit the speech or religious freedoms  of the people. Nor is the Second Amendment necessary - the authority to  forbid citizens from keeping & bearing arms is nowhere given to the  federal government in the body of the Constitution. And so forth. If  the Federalists were right about anything, it was their warning  (disingenuous thought it may have been) that the Bill of Rights would  one day come to be interpreted as a list of permissions granted to  citizens - rather than as a list of restrictions laid upon the federal  government. Sadly, they were correct - which is why today we have people  scrounging through "penumbras" and parsing through the Constitution  trying to find "non-enumerated rights" like the so-called "right to  privacy" ...


People who waste time trying to find a "right to privacy" in the Constitution are tacitly acceding the notion that the Constitution is a grant of rights or priveleges to be given to citizens - rather than an enumeration of specific permissions and restrictions applicable to the federal government. IOW: They are trying to play the corrupt system's game on its own terms - and that is a "no win" proposition.

----------


## Danan

> When the State can tax you for any property that you have already paid for in full, and confiscate it for failure to pay your Property Tax, it was never really your property to begin with.
> 
> Mundanes can not actually own Property.  Thus, Mundanes have NO property Rights.  Thus, Mundanes have NO RIGHTS WHAT SO EVER.


Just because your rights are violated by the state doesn't mean they cease to exist.

----------


## Danan

Walter Block is exactly right. There is no "right to privacy" just as there is no "right to free speech". If I would start to post racist slurs, communist propaganda, or other vile content on this forum, I would be banned. And that wouldn't violate my "rights". In fact I would be the one violating the property rights of Bryan who owns this forum and clearly doesn't want that stuff to be posted here.

Similarily, you don't have a "right to privacy" when "violating" this "right" is understood as anything else than an act of aggression against your physical property. If you stand in a place were I can see you and I'm being on my own property (or have the actual property owner's permission to be were I am) then I have a right to look at you. If I have a right to look at you, I also have a right to remember how you look like in my mind. If I'm a good painter I can later on draw the scene at my home. There are absolutely no rights violated in this scenario. The same principle applies if I take a photographic picture of you. What about when I'm standing around naked in my front yard, without a fence? Would I be able to sue anyone who looks at me? Because that logically follows from this "right to privacy". That would be a great way to make a living.

What about soundwaves and lightwaves? Do you "own" them? Does that give you a "right to privacy"? Even if you make the case that you "own" them, would that really be a good argument in favor of a right to privacy? Absolutely not. You can own these waves all you want. Nobody trys to take them away from you. But if you emitt them into my camera lense, how exactly did I violate your property? If anything I could then sue you if I don't like your face, for sending your ugly lightwaves into my eyes.

Some people who either didn't read the article or weren't able to understand his positon seem to believe that Walter Block is ok with the government spying on its citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, in doing so it violates real property rights all the time. Also, he doesn't believe the government has a right to do *anything* as it's inherently violating private property rights in order to exist. There is no greater advocate against government spying than him.

----------


## Contumacious

> Walter Block is exactly right. There is no "right to privacy" just as there is no "right to free speech". If I would start to post racist slurs, communist propaganda, or other vile content on this forum, I would be banned. And that wouldn't violate my "rights". In fact I would be the one violating the property rights of Bryan who owns this forum and clearly doesn't want that stuff to be posted here.



Well the right to PRIVACY can be either Constitutional or contractual.

As is pertains to the federal and state governments the right to privacy is controlled by *Griswold v. Connecticut - 381 U.S. 479 (1965)*

As it pertains to private - non governmental entities - those rights are delineated by a contract.

But I do understand that as it applies to the Paparazzi , TMZ, and upskirt photographers the right to privacy depends on the setting. If Joe Blow takes pictures of someone undressing while trying on clothes at the XYZ store then the XYZ store may be liable if it promised privacy to its customers.

.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> When the State can tax you for any property that you have already paid for in full, and confiscate it for failure to pay your Property Tax, it was never really your property to begin with.
> 
> Mundanes can not actually own Property.  Thus, Mundanes have NO property Rights.  Thus, Mundanes have NO RIGHTS WHAT SO EVER.


And until this changes, arguing Block's position, either pro or con, is essentially a philosophical circle jerk.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Feeding the Abscess posted about this same Block article a couple of weeks ago: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght-to-Privacy
> 
> 
> 
> Block was not addressing the Bill of Rights. Here is what I had to say on this subject in FtA's thread:
> 
> 
> *
> People who waste time trying to find a "right to privacy" in the Constitution are tacitly acceding the notion that the Constitution is a grant of rights or priveleges to be given to citizens - rather than an enumeration of specific permissions and restrictions applicable to the federal government. IOW: They are trying to play the corrupt system's game on its own terms - and that is a "no win" proposition*.


This^^ +a bunch

----------


## nobody's_hero

Some things just fall under the realm of common decency, and we've been lacking that in society for quite some time.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> And until this changes, arguing Block's position, either pro or con, is essentially a philosophical circle jerk.


If there is no firm grounding in philosophical opposition to aggression (in this and almost all large scale instances, the State), how can that ever change?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Feeding the Abscess posted about this same Block article a couple of weeks ago: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght-to-Privacy
> 
> 
> 
> Block was not addressing the Bill of Rights. Here is what I had to say on this subject in FtA's thread:
> 
> 
> 
> People who waste time trying to find a "right to privacy" in the Constitution are tacitly acceding the notion that the Constitution is a grant of rights or priveleges to be given to citizens - rather than an enumeration of specific permissions and restrictions applicable to the federal government. IOW: They are trying to play the corrupt system's game on its own terms - and that is a "no win" proposition.


No need to give me any credit. I was just disseminating ideas, and since this thread has had a healthy dose of viewership and dialogue, the purpose of my post has been fulfilled.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Some things just fall under the realm of common decency, and we've been lacking that in society for quite some time.


In multi-cultural places like the US, it's hard to have a single common decency.  Look at the Wal-Martians compared to the orthodox Jews or Amish, for example.

----------


## bolil

> That is the only way you can be perceived in this realm, thus, you do not own yourself, using that argument.


AF, with all due respect and much are you due, you are wrong.  The most evident way a thing can be percieved is by the space it occupies.  That is to say physical touch, and if we are all equally enowed with this postive right of privacy the cops are within their rights requesting they not be taped nor recorded.

If you build a fence and encrypt all things leaving property you own you have taken steps to protect your physical self.  However, if I shout "$#@! the police" well anyone within the range of hearing has heard and they cannot simply shut off certain physical realities of being human.  However if you build a fence and I climb that fence to listen or observe you I have committed aggression.  If you do not build a fence or install blinds or encryption devices you don't forfeit your right to privacy, you just never had it to begin with.

That being said, I speak from a utopian libertarian persepective where the only law is one pertaining to the intrusion on the liberty of another.  Currently, most laws on the books, run antithetical to my perspective.

Also, take the NSA... if there were a ISP that refused to provide the National Socialist Administration with the data of their customers that would be unapproachable in any court.  But as it lay,now, the state is the only organization with a right to privacy.  The rest of us, seeing the truth, feel we deserve this right as well.  But rights cannot be taken away, and there fore privacy was not a right to begin with.  Discretion, yes, privacy no.

In my world, no consentual crime would be considered a crime.  No act without a DIRECT victim would be a crime.  I cannot help by be an 'ape of my ideal'.

Take the fourth, everything included by it is physically identifiable.  A voice, and sight, are not those things.

If the right to privacy is a negative right than Snowden has aggressed upon that right, the Goc being composed of individuals who are endowed with their rights beyond all forfeit.  The government has no right to privacy, and neither do you.  You do, however, have the right to your property.  The two are different, so I believe.

Your right not to be stopped and frisked has nothing to do with privacy.  Nay, its genesis is in a larger truth that YOU OWN YOU.  A stop and frisk has nothing to do with ones right to their voice or even their visage, it has all to do with ones right to their own physical manifestation.

Really what I am saying is that the state and agents of that vulgar contrivance have no more right to censorship than the people they claim to serve.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> AF, with all due respect and much are you due, you are wrong.  The most evident way a thing can be percieved is by the space it occupies.  That is to say physical touch, and if we are all equally enowed with this postive right of privacy the cops are within their rights requesting they not be taped nor recorded.
> 
> If you build a fence and encrypt all things leaving property you own you have taken steps to protect your physical self.  However, if I shout "$#@! the police" well anyone within the range of hearing has heard and they cannot simply shut off certain physical realities of being human.  However if you build a fence and I climb that fence to listen or observe you I have committed aggression.  If you do not build a fence or install blinds or encryption devices you don't forfeit your right to privacy, you just never had it to begin with.
> 
> That being said, I speak from a utopian libertarian persepective where the only law is one pertaining to the intrusion on the liberty of another.  Currently, most laws on the books, run antithetical to my perspective.
> 
> Also, take the NSA... if there were a ISP that refused to provide the National Socialist Administration with the data of their customers that would be unapproachable in any court.  But as it lay,now, the state is the only organization with a right to privacy.  The rest of us, seeing the truth, feel we deserve this right as well.  But rights cannot be taken away, and there fore privacy was not a right to begin with.  Discretion, yes, privacy no.
> 
> In my world, no consentual crime would be considered a crime.  No act without a DIRECT victim would be a crime.  I cannot help by be an 'ape of my ideal'.
> ...


I like to think I did a good job myself in this thread, but this^ I reckon is the current thread winner.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> In multi-cultural places like the US, it's hard to have a single common decency.  Look at the Wal-Martians compared to the orthodox Jews or Amish, for example.


I think at one point we did at least have some sort of lowest common denominator for decency. Whether or not it is illegal to pocket-masturbate in a check-out line to the MILF in front of you, or whether or not she has a right not to be ogled, is perhaps a completely different argument than whether or not it's suggestible or desirable behavior.

I would also add that a society that seems to demonstrate a gross neglect for self-respect will most certainly never receive any respect from their government. But I supposed I'm starting to sound like grandma.

----------


## bolil

> Persons = property.
> Houses = property.
> Papers = property.
> Effects = property.
> Unreasonable search/seizure = initiation of aggression = property.
> 
> In any case, rights don't come from a piece of paper, nor do they extend from the State, in the philosophy Block is discussing.
> 
> You seem to be misunderstanding the argument entirely, and in your defense, perhaps that's partially the failure of Block. Block (and Rothbard) isn't saying you have no right to property, or that you have no right to not be subjected to the imitation of aggression against your property. He's saying that beyond property rights, there are no 'privacy' rights that are not already included in property rights, and that your rights end where another's begin. For example, he's saying you cannot rightfully prohibit someone from using their own body and property to take a picture of you if you have made yourself available to their vision and camera, and so long as they are not invading your property in order to take said picture. As, to prohibit such use of another's property would necessarily imply initiation of force to do so, and thus be infringing on their property.
> ...


winner ^

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But law is directed at individuals, mostly.
> 
> "Shalt nots" abound.
> 
> Now, I'd be very happy with "Thou shalt not commit aggression or fraud against another person's property or person" and leave it at that.
> 
> Aggressively databasing and collating and collecting information about somebody *is* an act of aggression against that person.


I agree, but should parse this further.  Digging into another's information (file cabinets, hard drives, employer records, etc) is absolutely a violation of property rights.  This argument is much sounder than trying to make an argument for a "right to privacy".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If that's what you want to believe, believe it. Don't expect me to go along.


I don't just _believe_ it-it's demonstrable fact.  You don't have to go along, but you're incorrect-much like a member of the Flat Earth Society.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> In multi-cultural places like the US, it's hard to have a single common decency.


Which is one of the reasons why those trying to destroy the U.S. have been pushing this pile of crap called multiculturalism.

----------


## bolil

> I agree, but should parse this further.  Digging into another's information (file cabinets, hard drives, employer records, etc) is absolutely a violation of property rights.  This argument is much sounder than trying to make an argument for a "right to privacy".


No more rep for you...

Someone hook this divine gent up.

Cannot we all agree that we have the right, the inherent and obvious right to not have our physical selves harmed in any way, save in retribution is both divine and obvious.  To lay claim to a right of privacy is to give our ecploiters justifications for their actions.  They love it.  They spring quarter chubs at the idea of their demeanor being indadmissable due to "privacy".  Theirs is much, too much, blather about the rule of law when they don't even give justice a second thought,...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Which is one of the reasons why those trying to destroy the U.S. have been pushing this pile of crap called multiculturalism.


Yup.  Just in case it wasn't clear-I don't believe in the insanely subjective and irrational ethics of "multiculturalism".  This is why property rights are so useful.  They give us an objective way to tell if an aggression or violation of rights has occurred. (at least as objective as we mortals can get)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No more rep for you...
> 
> Someone hook this divine gent up.


Thank ye kindly, sir.  ~hugs~

----------


## green73

> Yes, you own yourself, but you do not own the vibrations cast by your voice nor the light reflected by your body.


Nicely put.

----------


## green73

> Rothbard, for all the great things he did, had one of the dumbest abortion positions ever.
> 
> Block's view on abortion is actually intelligent, I just reject it.  Rothbard's is just stupid and juvenile.


Stupid and juvenile?  Don't go ad hominem. Logically deconstruct his arguments.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yup.  Just in case it wasn't clear-I don't believe in the insanely subjective and irrational ethics of "multiculturalism".  This is why property rights are so useful.  They give us an objective way to tell if an aggression or violation of rights has occurred. (at least as objective as we mortals can get)


Those are 2 completely different topics, HB.

----------


## green73

> How is it worse than Block's? (much less "stupid and juvenile")  They're extremely similar-Rothbard just didn't have time (or didn't take the time, not sure) to develop his thoughts as well as he should have.


His view is that if the technology ever exists, a woman should be able to have the living fetus removed and brought to gestation, thus appeasing both the pro and anti-abortion crowds. What's the problem?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> His view is that if the technology ever exists, a woman should be able to have the living fetus removed and brought to gestation, thus appeasing both the pro and anti-abortion crowds. What's the problem?


For one, he referred to the baby as a PARASITE!

I'm not at all interested in appeasing jerkwad *libertines* who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.  Being responsible for our own actions is at the crux of anything even remotely libertarian.

----------


## green73

> Now, I'd be very happy with "Thou shalt not commit aggression or fraud against another person's property or person" and leave it at that.
> 
> Aggressively databasing and collating and collecting information about somebody *is* an act of aggression against that person.


Does Block endorse that?

----------


## DamianTV

I'll maintain that Privacy is NOT a Property Right.  It is a LIMITATION intended to prevent information that can not help but to be observed from being recorded and used against an individual.  A person can not help but to observe the information around them.  What Privacy does do is puts a limit on what can be done with that information.

----------


## green73

> For one, he referred to the baby as a PARASITE!
> 
> I'm not at all interested in appeasing jerkwad *libertines* who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.  Being responsible for our own actions is at the crux of anything even remotely libertarian.


You're talking about Rothbard. I was talking about Block. 

I can assure you, the last thing Rothbard ever cared about was appeasing "the libertines" or anybody else for that matter.  Block is simply trying to find an answer acceptable to both sides.

----------


## Contumacious

> *I'll maintain that Privacy is NOT a Property Right.*  It is a LIMITATION intended to prevent information that can not help but to be observed from being recorded and used against an individual.  A person can not help but to observe the information around them.  What Privacy does do is puts a limit on what can be done with that information.


Then you are wrong.

Coke's formula is a property right.

A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. In some jurisdictions, such secrets are referred to as "confidential information", but are generally not referred to as "classified information" in the United States, since that refers to government secrets protected by a different set of laws and practices.

.

----------


## DamianTV

We're talking about different things.  Something you create is your Property.  We have Non Enumerated Rights that we just figure are Common Sense.  Like the Right to Breathe.  Would you consider Breathing to be a Property Right as well?

And no, I am not wrong.  Right and Wrong is a Subjective Conclusion.  So not saying that I am right, just saying that is my Opinion (IE Subjective).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Then you are wrong.
> 
> Coke's formula is a property right.
> 
> A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. In some jurisdictions, such secrets are referred to as "confidential information", but are generally not referred to as "classified information" in the United States, since that refers to government secrets protected by a different set of laws and practices.
> 
> .


No, it's not a property right.  You're thinking of "intellectual property", which is a made-up "right".  Coke's formula is just information.  Property rights come into play when the formula is written down.  Someone can own that piece of paper.  Someone can even own vessels of Coke.  But you can see the IP thread(s) for all the details about that.

----------


## Cabal

> We're talking about different things.  Something you create is your Property.  We have Non Enumerated Rights that we just figure are Common Sense.  Like the Right to Breathe.  Would you consider Breathing to be a Property Right as well?


Yes. Property rights essentially extend from self-ownership, as such the body is property. IOW, we own ourselves. Lungs and other organs facilitate the bodily function of breathing, a function that is also necessary for life. So yes, in this way, breathing is a property right. Moreover, it can also be argued that we also have a property right in the air which we breathe that occupies our own property (such as our homes), so if that air is ever polluted from outside our property, we can rightfully claim that to be a property right violation. Inhibiting the free non-aggressive function of the body is initiation of force against property. So again, yes, 'the right to breathe' is included in property rights.

Every legitimate right is, in essence, a property right.

----------


## bolil

> Yes. Property rights essentially extend from self-ownership, as such the body is property. IOW, we own ourselves. Lungs and other organs facilitate the bodily function of breathing, a function that is also necessary for life. So yes, in this way, breathing is a property right. Moreover, it can also be argued that we also have a property right in the air which we breathe that occupies our own property (such as our homes), so if that air is ever polluted from outside our property, we can rightfully claim that to be a property right violation. Inhibiting the free non-aggressive function of the body is initiation of force against property. So again, yes, 'the right to breathe' is included in property rights.
> 
> Every legitimate right is, in essence, a property right.


indeed it is.  We have sovreign rights over our bodies and also property we improve, exchange for, or inherit.  We cannot own that which we put into the plane of visual, intellectual, or auditory phenomenon.  If we did, you could not quote this statement without expecting a lawsuit.  I put it on the internet, essentially an extentsion of reality and as I have done so I have not right to the very words I've written, no matter how weird.

Rights cannot be forfeited, though they can be forsaken.  I can, for example, forsake my right of self owenership but i can NEVER forfeit it.  Only I can raise my hand, and only I can put it down.

----------


## Peace Piper

> I don't just _believe_ it-it's demonstrable fact.  You don't have to go along, but you're incorrect-much like a member of the Flat Earth Society.


That's funny, using the phrase "Flat Earth Society" in a thread about one of Block-head's idiotic theories.

Look at what else this genius has put forth:


"Voluntary slave contract"

In an essay on "inalienability" of natural and legal rights, Block defends what he calls a "voluntary slave contract", arguing that it is "a bona fide contract where consideration crosses hands; when it is abrogated, theft occurs". He notes only Robert Nozick agrees with him, and critiques the views of the libertarians who disagree. Block seeks to make "a tiny adjustment" which "strengthens libertarianism by making it more internally consistent." He argues that his position shows "that contract, predicated on private property [can] reach to the furthest realms of human interaction, even to voluntary slave contracts

This one is super duper :

*Productivity of blacks, women*

In November 2008 James Gill wrote in the Times-Picayune that, in a controversial lecture given at Loyola College, Baltimore, Block asserted that blacks and women were paid less than whites because they are "less productive".[21][16] In the lecture, Block defended his views on women by alleging that among younger and unmarried women there is virtually no income disparity.[21] When asked by an attendee to explain the difference in productivity between blacks and whites, he stated that an economist he was not qualified to explain the disparity. However, Block proposed two theories that might account for it: first, what he called the "politically correct" explanation, or socioeconomic disparities and historical injustices towards blacks; second, the "political incorrect" explanation, or "lower black IQs"

Evictionism (in contrast to abortion)

According to Block's moral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of the eviction of the fetus from the womb, and the killing of the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand against trespass and murder, Block supports a right to the first act, but, except in certain circumstances, not the second act. Block believes the woman may legally abort if the fetus is not viable outside the womb, or the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus, and no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Block
Libertarians should send this nutcase to another country during their conventions. He doesn't drive people away, he flies them away.

You can have the last word, I won't be wasting any more time on a Walter Block-head thread.

----------


## HigherVision

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/w...ht-to-privacy/
> 
> First Paragraph quoted below, click the link to read the rest:
> 
> 
> 
> So, after reading the whole thing, do you agree with Block?  Why or why not?
> 
> (For the record, I'm not taking a position on this just yet.  Waiting to see the arguments.)


Yes I agree with him. His central premise of all rights flowing from private property is correct. I disagree with some of his positions like on circumcision, abortion and immigration but I agree with this central premise.




> Yes. Property rights essentially extend from self-ownership, as such the body is property. IOW, we own ourselves. Lungs and other organs facilitate the bodily function of breathing, a function that is also necessary for life. So yes, in this way, breathing is a property right.


Which is why I find it disappointing that Block's opinion on involuntary foreskin amputation (circumcision) is in favor of it. The argument that it's justified because there are potential health benefits in pre-emptively amputating healthy tissue and a fundamental part of the male sex organ is ridiculous. Because keeping it might slightly increase your chances of getting an infection or some nonsense if you never wash yourself. I don't suppose Dr. Block would be in favor of involuntary breast removal for girls and yet breast cancer is far more common I believe than any problems related to the male foreskin. And like the breasts the foreskin serves a valuable function. It is not an 'extra' part, there is no scientific basis for that claim. All of us who've been involuntarily circumcised should be allowed to sue the doctors that did it for damages.

----------


## July

I agree with the premise that privacy flows from property.... it is a function of individual property rights, derived from the negative right to be free from invasion/coercion. For something to be private, you first must own the thing, otherwise it is not necessarily yours, may belong to someone else, to everybody, or to nobody at all. In a free society, positive rights and obligations, such as an obligation to _protect_ privacy comes about through voluntary contract only. This is no different then any other negative right then. For example, you have a right to acquire property. You don't, however, have a right to steal property from others or to obligate others to sell or provide property for you, except as agreed upon through voluntary contract. 

Can privacy be said to exist in systems where there is collective ownership of public property? Why or why not? This is something to consider as the state erodes more individual property rights over time; it is actually eroding individual privacy along with it. This is actually the States very argument for why it feels it has the right to make huge databases of license plates and photograph all mail going through the public post office, etc. The roads, mail, Internet, etc..are all considered to be public systems, your right to privacy then ends where the collective/common good begins. Now remember a State, by nature of being a State, is not voluntary. Now if some company runs a postal service, and they have (voluntarily) agreed to protect your privacy, you have (or ought to have) legal recourse should they violate their contract with you. Not so with a state...a state does what it wants through sheer force.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> You can have the last word, I won't be wasting any more time on a Walter Block-head thread.


A wise decision on your part.

If  the content of your post is any indication, you don't seem to have any  substantive counter-argument to offer - just the intellectual equivalent  of "Duuuuude!! Walter Block is such a blockhead! Get it? "Block"-head?  Har har har!"

So ... thank you for sparing the rest of us any futher demonstration of your lack of acumen.

----------

