4 votes

Walter Block says you have no right to privacy

There is no right to privacy; none at all. It is not a negative right, all of which are supported by libertarian theory; e.g., the right not to be molested, murdered, raped, etc. Rather, the so called right to privacy is a so called “positive right,” as in the “right” to food, clothing, shelter, welfare, etc. That is, it is no right at all; rather the “right” to privacy is an aspect of wealth. As Murray N. Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 16) made clear, there is only a right to private property, not privacy:

It might, however, be charged that Smith does not have the right to print such a statement, because Jones has a “right to privacy” (his “human” right) which Smith does not have the right to violate. But is there really such a right to privacy? How can there be? How can there be a right to prevent Smith by force from disseminating knowledge which he possesses? Surely there can be no such right. Smith owns his own body and therefore has the property right to own the knowledge he has inside his head, including his knowledge about Jones. And therefore he has the corollary right to print and disseminate that knowledge. In short, as in the case of the “human right” to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s property from invasion. The only right “to privacy” is the right to protect one’s property from being invaded by someone else. In brief, no one has the right to burgle someone else’s home, or to wiretap someone’s phone lines. Wiretapping is properly a crime not because of some vague and woolly “invasion of a ‘right to privacy’,” but because it is an invasion of the property right of the person being wiretapped.

http://libertycrier.com/walter-block-there-is-no-right-to-pr...

I'm pretty sure Rothbard was just trying to illustrate that our aforementioned "right to privacy" is just a vein of property rights. That we have a "right to privacy" because we have property rights. Just as we have the right to distribute books with our opinions because it is a vein of the right to free speech. What do you think?

FYI: I disagree with Block a lot, especially on firearms.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bump

So I remember to read these comments below.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

It is misleading to say

It is misleading to say definitively that one has the right to privacy the same as it is misleading to say that one does not have the right to privacy. I have the right to privacy on my own property and I do not have the right to privacy on someone else's property. It is my right (if we are interested in peaceful coexistence) to be unviolated in the space that is my own.

So, if the question is: do you have the right to privacy? The answer is: it depends.

actually, no, if you understand that privacy

is an extension of private property rights.

You only have right to YOUR native property (your body) or justly acquired property. So it doesn't "depend."

Suppose if Walter wants to be uberly nitpicky, he can, in absurdum, argue that if you were out walking in public normally whereby you merely exposing your face and others seeing, it would be a privacy violation, if it were a right. But I'd rebut that by not covering one's face and walking out in public, you're consenting and allowing others to see it. So there's no privacy violation when you're exposing yourself in public, by your own consenting volition.

But if privacy weren't a right, then anyone in public may physically invade your body, for the sake of exposing you, without your consent.

It comes down to do you own your own physical body and private property? That's all what privacy is.

If it weren't a right, then you should be open to being surveiled; if it's not a right, then where's the violation?

Privacy = Extension of private property.

It's what YOU choose to keep from others. If you cannot keep something from others, you never owned that you do not want exposed to others, to begin with, no?

Just like any other right: you cannot violate a right, if it isn't a right, no?

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I'd like to add: You mention

I'd like to add: You mention the "public", but in a world ruled by private property there is no "public".

we can debate from anarchic perspective all day, and nit-pick

over absolutes, it's gonna be a longer debate than I choose to engage in, today.

that said, I was speaking from current 'legal' paradigm, for the sake of argument; thought that was kinda self-explanatory. c'est la vie. lol.

as even what Walter argues, WHEN he invokes "should be sued for..." "should be jailed for...", he's NOT talking anarchic 'private law society' when he's talking these issues; he's explicitly talking from current legal paradigm within the Constitutional legal 'judicial' system confines.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I'm a former student of

I'm a former student of Block's. As far as I understand him, when he says "should" he says it with theory in mind, not practicality.

thanks for making my point:

"as even what Walter argues, WHEN he invokes "should be sued for..." "should be jailed for...", he's NOT talking anarchic 'private law society' when he's talking these issues; he's explicitly talking from current legal paradigm within the Constitutional legal 'judicial' system confines."

that's why they're hypotheticals, as in "theory" but he's using it based on current legal paradigm arguments: there's no suing or jailing without the current legal system, because WHEN he invoked those examples he wasn't speaking of Hanns-Hoppe-ian private law society.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Do your rights not change

Do your rights not change depending upon the conditions which surround you? In other words, if you are on someone else's property you have different rights than if you are on your own property. Rights are not a constant--your rights change and they depend upon your conditions.

If I am on your property, then I do not even have the negative rights which Block mentions.

There are places where I have the right to privacy and there are places where I do not have the right to privacy. You disagree?

no, you're actually arguing contracts, not rights

"Do your rights not change depending upon the conditions which surround you?"

Thanks for making my point. It's not a Right, but a 'right' IF it "depends."

A Right, is a Right, is a Right. Period.

You're talking WHEN and/or WHERE you choose to exercise it. If it's destroyed by not exercising it, then it's not a right. A right cannot be destroyed. That's why it's called a "right," NOT a 'right.'

say you're a repo man.

You yourself have the right to any justly acquired property. But contractually, the man you're going after has violated his contract: mainly failed to pay. So you're repossessing what was once 'his' car.

Now, just because you repo-ed his car, that does not mean the man you're justly confiscating from, due to his contractual failure to pay, does NOT mean that man does not have a right to possess any other justly acquired property, from now on or in the future.

He just may not exercise that right, under the violation of the voluntary contract he entered into in scheduled payment for his car; he failed to pay, so collateral collection it is.

That does not mean his right to acquire property is gone, forever, as in destroyed.

Thus the "depend" you're arguing is actually contractual, not a negation or fundamental destruction of that said right to acquire and keep justly acquired private property.

"If I am on your property, then I do not even have the negative rights which Block mentions."

That's because you're on MY property, meaning you AGREE to enter my property VOLUNTARILY, after agreeing to the stipulations/conditions which I put forth.

Right is a Right is a Right.

VOLUNTARILY choosing to limit its exercise is a contractual one, whether written or verbal.

But, it's not a "right" if you merely not exercising it, destroys that right. It's not a right, if once you CHOOSE to not exercise it in one place, means you cannot do it forever.

Contracts, that is what you're talking about.

A RIGHT does not "depend." Otherwise it's not a right.

You have the right to think what you want. NO ONE can control that or destroy your right to do so, regardless of whether you are on your or my property. Your speech is an outward expression of your thoughts. So it's what you choose to communicate for others to hear. Speech isn't a 'constantly on' you have to actively decide TO speak. Meaning you yourself decide where and when you will speak. Well, unless you sleep-talk. But that's whole other discussion.

So, WHEN you speak, is by choice. That doesn't mean your right TO speak depends on WHEN or WHERE you can speak. Otherwise it's not a right.

You have RIGHT to self-defense. So does it stop being a right, just because you CHOOSE to exercise it TX, but not in NY?

Just because NY govt tells you you can't unless you do x, y, z does that mean you can't? Just because natural rights-averse, not to mention even in the Constitutional paradigm, those Oath-violators say you can't does that mean you have no right to self-defense?

Does your right to defend yourself "depend"??

Or WHERE and WHEN you CHOOSE to EXERCISE that right, you do so contractually?

That, is the heart of the matter.

You are talking contracts, not rights.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

My right to speak DOES depend

My right to speak DOES depend upon where I speak. As an example: I do not have the right to say whatever I would like on the DailyPaul. The ability to exercise one's rights is limited by the confines of one's property.

do we

really have to go back to re-defining what are private property rights/free speech/natural rights 101?

come now.

please read below. if you still disagree and repeat the same conflation that 'rights are dependent on contracts,' it's gonna become circular, and must bid adieu, at least on the current topic.

but no bigs though. c'est la vie.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Well, from my perspective,

Well, from my perspective, contracts define rights. I don't even have the right to free speech if I am on someone else's property. My rights on the property of someone else are defined by the terms of my agreement with the ownership.

Certainly I have the right to think what I want. But if I expose my thoughts on someone else's property then they can certainly expel me.

My right to defense is also conditional. I have no right to defend myself if I have violated the property of someone else.

We have to be clear on definitions, and get it right,

if you want to truly debate the issues.

To wit:

Rights ARE NOT contractually based. Those are called "terms" and "stipulations" and "conditions."

Well, from my perspective, contracts define rights.

Yes, that's why that's your "perspective," which is an expression of your opinion, not a definition of the word, "Rights."

I don't even have the right to free speech if I am on someone else's property.

Yes and No: as I explained previously, that's because you VOLUNTARILY AGREED to enter his property on those terms, but just because you agreed to limit an exercise of a right, does NOT destroy the right. Otherwise, if so, then after leaving your that said property in that example, then you would not have right to "free speech" afterwords. An outside person/party/entity can force/enforce a restriction of the exercise of a right, but not destroy it forever. Otherwise, as per proper definition, it is not a right.

But the thing about other people's property? You have NO RIGHT to be there, unless the property owner allowed you to. So, house rules.

My rights on the property of someone else are defined by the terms of my agreement with the ownership.

No, the only rights you have, once you VOLUNTARILY agree to enter someone else's property under specific terms, is the sanctity of your physical body. Hey, isn't that exactly like the same amount of rights you've had, before you entered his/her property?

And again, NO: your "rights" are NOT "defined by terms" those are your VOLUNTARY contractual agreement. Your rights don't depend on contracts, otherwise it's not a right, as per the proper definition.

Certainly I have the right to think what I want. But if I expose my thoughts on someone else's property then they can certainly expel me.

Why should that come as a surprise? But does that destroy your right to do so? No, as per proper definition of the word, "Rights."

I have no right to defend myself if I have violated the property of someone else.

Um, that, would be a big fat: no shiite*

lol.

Because in that example, you violated someone else. You know, the whole no "INITIATION of force"-thingy?

Cited example in your quoted statement above, is akin to an armed burglar expecting to mount a stand-your-ground castle doctrine after invading and killing a rightful homeonwer. You have no such legal recourse, if and when you violate rights of others. Thought that too was self-evident, no?

Again, you're arguing contracts and violations.

If you have already violated someone else's rights, you DESERVE what you get.

Ahh... but here's the rub: but still, does that negate your right to defend yourself against another prisoner trying to kill you, once you're jailed for your previous crimes?

No.

A right cannot be destroyed, period.

But, when and where you exercise it can be limited voluntarily or involuntarily by force.

So, if you've violated someone else's rights and are jailed, all that is simply someone who chooses to exercise bigger more intimidating force, will, from that day forth, choose to prevent you from exercising it.

Ah... but I'd still caveat that with one more asterisk: that still does not mean your right to defend yourself is destroyed.

Huh? You say?

Sure, the courts, the Constitutional paradigm will argue that once you violate someone else, you've 'forfeited that right.'

Yes, Legally AND Lawfully speaking. And, there's a difference; former is legalese/statutes and the latter is Common Law; longer discussion for another day.

But, technically?

NO.

Huh? You say again?

Yes, the proper reality description would be that not that you've "forfeited your rights," what's actually happening is, they're PREVENTING you from exercising that right, NOT destroying that right.

Because, what is the Constitution and legalese, but contracts?

You've violated that contract (that you've never signed, but for the sake of discussion, suspend the anarchist in you for the sake of argument), once you violated someone else's rights. No?

Yes, that means others will choose to prevent you from exercising your right, by locking your ass up.

It's like speech and thought.

You STILL have a right to speak and think even if your prison warden tells you you can't: you'll just get your ass beat once you do, open your mouth.

But still, it doesn't stop you from speaking or thinking. Because it's your right to do so, as per proper definition of the term, "Rights."

WHERE & WHEN you can exercise your rights may be limited by contract, be it verbal or written, or in the example you proffered, you've physically violated and initiated aggression against someone, so in its aftermath, you will be physically limited in exercising by a third party, mainly the govt prison.

Under current legal paradigm? Sure, they say 'take his rights away' but what they're actually still saying is: 'we will punish you because you've initiated force against others, so we will restrict when and where you can exercise it even more.'

That's all the state CAN do: even prisoners have the right to defend themselves from another prisoner trying to shiv you to death in the communal shower or cafeteria or laundry room, no?

Does that right to defend yourself get physically fundamentally destroyed? Or, limited/restricted by outside force?

Now, semantically, I accept your proposition that in the eyes of the current law, if the State restricts me from exercising then it's de facto same thing, as it being NOT a 'right' but a conditional privilege.

I wholly understand your argument. I'm simply refuting how your perspective attempts to define the term, what a "right" is.

But, truly and realistically, no one, no govt, no corporation can destroy ANY rights: be they right to think, speak, or defend yourself. Period. It's only when outside physical force impedes it that it's limited in exercise from. But that still does not negate it as a right.

Rights are part of who you are. Period.

That's why Natural Rights are often synonymously referred to as "negative rights."

Just because the State passes a law that says "you cannot breathe if you're convicted of x, y, z" but not execute you, yet, does that mean you have no right to breathe?

No.

Yeah, to a certain extent, like many libertarian absolutes, the argument and examples can seem like they go 'out there,' but regardless, but in the finality: a right is something that cannot be destroyed. Period.

You're still debating with me when and where it can be exercised, there for it depends.

I wholly understand where you're coming from.

But my rebuttal is that just because something can be limited to where and when it can be exercised by an outside entity (as to restrict you have to have another party preventing you from exercising it), does not fundamentally destroy it, if it is in fact a Right.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Let me emphasize: It seems to

Let me emphasize: It seems to me as though you are claiming that your views somehow epitomize some kind of eternal law of humanity. This is in no way the case. Your views, which I sympathize with, are your own ideas and they are only as good as they are convincing--what you say exists is non existent for much of the rest of humanity. There are alternative realities; in fact, no two people can possibly share the same reality. In other words, there are infinite possibilities for truth.

I can literally, word for word rebut your statement with your

own words, and simply make the case that, THAT is exactly what YOU were doing; as you said, in your own words, it's just your "perspective," ie. your opinion (which you are not denying you're expressing here):

It seems to me as though you are claiming that your views somehow epitomize some kind of eternal law of humanity. This is in no way the case. Your views, which I sympathize with, are your own ideas and they are only as good as they are convincing--what you say exists is non existent for much of the rest of humanity. There are alternative realities; in fact, no two people can possibly share the same reality. In other words, there are infinite possibilities for truth.

Again, "It SEEMS to me as though" is also an emotive expression of your own perspective, but more particularly in this case, a presumptive expression of your own feelings, which has no bearing with me, one way or another.

Can you read minds?

Your attempt is made worse by proceeding with a slightly declaratory sentence that alludes authoritatively something I've never stated or claimed. Or, perhaps you assume I'll be pushed to defend it, on your terms?

So, we're devolving into accusing me of the non-existent indefendibles? Tsk tsk tsk: not with this lad.

"...are your own ideas and they are only as good as they are convincing"

Indeed, but seeing as I'm only talking to you, on this matter, and you haven't convinced me of your case, even though, seemingly we share similar philosophic grounds, I'd say you've made my point.

That said, likewise, given such, if I've failed to convince you, even though, "rights," "natural rights," "negative/positive rights" while disputed endlessly, still have commonly understood definitions particularly among libertarian scholars, leaves us with nowhere to go. No?

Be that as it may, let's get back to the issue at hand: not, you reading my mind, or you alluding me stating the obvious is akin to me dictatorially laying down the Hammurabic Code, shall we? lol .O)

We have languages with definitions for words, for a reason. At no point do I arrogantly assume that describing known definitions are "my definitions" or are "claiming that your views somehow epitomize some kind of eternal law of humanity"; very flowery way of saying 'get over yourself' indeed. LOL. It's mildly 'personal' but I take no such ill-presumed, whether intentional or not, offense.

To wit, I'd say, stop digging, if you can't defend an already existent definition of a word pertaining to a known topic.

You're still debating contracts vs. rights.

Hypothetical grandiose dramatic literary allusions and gestures can be hilarious, and pointedly so, if applicable, and targeted at proper deserving party. But, this is simply a case of you disagreeing with me on what definitions of known words and concepts are, particularly ones that are well known among libertarians as well.

No? If so, I'd say let sleeping dogs lie.

Cheers.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

You are talking about rights

You are talking about rights in some fantasy land, and I am talking about rights as they are. Rights are an idea, not something inherent. Rights don't exist apart from us. We quite literally make up what is right. There is no discrepancy between what we make right and what is actually right. Do you understand at all what I'm saying?

No, I'm talking about rights in reality & in definitional terms.

You are attempting to change the definition of terms, because in your mind (as you've expressed), how they're applied changes the very definitions of the terms themselves, rather you're repeatedly stating that, in fact, definitions are wholly dependent on how they're exercised and used, NOT what the word actually means.

If so, why have word definitions at all, then??

As Block's former student, if you cannot fathom what a "right" is vs. how a right is applied in reality, vs. me clearly explaining to you the difference between current applications of it as it stands in current legal Constitutional paradigm, vs. what it technically is, how it is applied, how it is not applied, etc. I don't see the point.

More so, allow me to ask you the same question:

Do you understand at all what I'm saying?

This is a common response to those whom one fails to convince, successfully: just because I disagree with you based on merits (or SEEM un-empathetic to your needs or intellectual positions) does not mean I don't understand you, or what you are saying, why you are saying what you are saying, or where you're coming from.

Clearly, you still do not understand the point I've been trying to make:

Rights are an idea, not something inherent. Rights don't exist apart from us.

Frankly, so are every single thing we humans express: words in languages are merely commonly communicable collection of expressible terms that are often codified (though not always, but mainly culturally agreed upon) to describe an object and/or idea(s).

We quite literally make up what is right.

Yes, no shiite, like every other thing humans label and describe.

But, that's exactly what ideas and concepts are: humans literally create them out of thin air, sometimes, though often, but not always.

That said, we're talking about concepts described as a word definition that derived out of human conducts and interactions over a long period of human history, ie. definition.

So then, I'd ask you again: If so, why have word definitions at all, then??

As such, one can argue NOTHING is "inherent": we're describing concepts understood and exercised by humans.

Human concepts "don't exist apart from us" because for you and me, we can only see ideas and concepts animated/manifested WHEN and IF a human acts on it.

Like, duh! NO shiite.

Still, that doesn't negate the concept itself, just because it is NOT being exercised.

If my body dies, does the fundamental concept or notion of what humans call a right to defend oneself/right to own property, etc. die with it?

No.

But, that is not what is being discussed here.

We're not talking definitions of terms, as terms for the sake of terms: languages and words live on, with or without you or me. So the whole argument about these concepts/ideas do or do not exist in vacuum is moot.

Of course, no exercisable human ideas exist apart from us. Ideas aren't physical trees, or everything else in nature.

As you clearly state, yes rights are ideas, along with EVERY non-physical thing, we humans describe or express. That's why I've been refuting your understanding of what "rights" are, as definitions of terms. Not on some metaphysical New Age 'frequency' level. lol.

These are not some fairy tales; you can research these in academic legal papers.

Rights, are rights, are Rights.

You cannot keep calling oranges, as tangerines and expect to be correct.

You're still misunderstanding word definition of what a right is, vs. when it can or cannot be exercised, and how just because a right is voluntarily limited from being exercised contractually, does not negate its fundamental existence as a right.

I can clearly see where you're coming from and what you're stating, because I'm able to re-communicate your points and what you're stating, back to you, even though I disagree with you. But, clearly you are still stuck on rights as being defined by one's conditional ability to exercise them. Not so. Definitions are important, if you are to debate with someone on merits of concepts and ideas, in a given discussion.

I'd say, let it be. It's getting pointlessly circular, at this juncture.

Like I said, no bigs.

Cheers.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

As an AnCap, I WHOLLY DISAGREE with Walter on this.

Privacy is an extension of my private property rights: mainly my body.

If Walter Block doesn't believe that privacy is a 'negative right' (ie. Natural Rights) but a resultant 'symptom' or a State-intervention necessary "positive right," then ANYONE should be able to physically strip Walter without his consent to take naked pictures of him, post it, and not face any consequences.

Sure, you may argue that the initiation of physically stripping him doesn't confer that privacy itself is a private property, even though in order to take a naked photo of him, one would have to either 1. physically strip him, or 2. catch him naked, by invading his private home, or 3. somehow find a naked photo online or offline posted by a third party, or 4. nowadays a TSA pornscanner.

Is Walter saying that Walter doesn't own his body so that TSA may backscatter wave-invade his body, at any time, not only at the airport (which one does 'voluntarily' by choosing to travel via govt/corporatist transport hubs), but now EVERYWHERE, as they're taking their operations on the road, via mobile backscatter vans, WITHOUT anyone's consent?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/03/02/docs-re...
http://www.naturalnews.com/031603_surveillance_police_state....
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/mobile_body_scanners/d...

Hey, if privacy isn't a right, then where's the violation?

What is surveillance, but a private property violation? Where's 'violating' if something never belong to you, or you had no right to it to begin with?

Using Walter's logic, he believes because a 'REAL' natural rights violation has to occur 1st, mainly physical home invasion, before 'positive' resultant symptom right of privacy can be violated, privacy itself is not a right?

So... then one must assume that Walter Block values the material private property right of his home NOT to be invaded so that the said peepy tom can take his naked photos MORE, than he values his own physical body (his first encounter with a private property after his birth) from being exposed by a third party, without his consent? Does his body not belong to him? He values his home more than his FIRST 'home' ie. his body??

A paparazzi (a private 3rd party) NOR any govt and/or its contractors have ANY right to invade his home to take naked photos of him, whether they do so with traditional camera or DHS/TSA backscatter 'cameras.' If so, he's basically arguing that the 'right' of a paparazzi/govt/corporatists to expose him (photos being 1st Amendment expression, under Bill of Rights argument), trumps his right to guard his own physical body?

You cannot 'keep away from others' what never belonged to you, either by birth or justly acquired, to begin with no?

Suppose Block should never be able to build a home with walls or fences to 'exercise privacy.' And, no, the act of building walls for your home is NOT a mere exercise in material private property right. If he were serious, then why bother wear clothes? What are your clothes, but a protective and/or often creatively expressive 'walls' for your physical body?

NO ONE has the "right" to view, expose, defile your body or the mind, without your consent.

And if you can argue that no one has right to violate your body, you have to OWN that said body, first. That fact alone makes privacy a private property right: mainly your body and the mind.

Can anyone, govt or private party physically expose Walter, strip him naked, without his consent, without physically transgressing against his physical body, first?

NO.

It is an absurd notion.

You cannot violate your physical or conscious body WITHOUT invading your privacy. PERIOD.

Privacy violation can only occur, when your private property right is violated, not 'also violated' as would be in a 'symptoms' argument.

That is not a resultant symptom: privacy violation IS a private property violation. And, there's no 'violating' something, unless it is a natural right, and you have a right to own something first (mainly your body and the mind).

Now you can, from an uber intellectual rhetorical philosophical point of contention debate privacy in the realm of intellectual property, ie. an expression of 'privacy violation' ie the said posted naked photos of Walter Block WITHOUT his consent, but that still doesn't mean Walter's physical body belongs to the 'Commons.'

Hate to say it, but occasionally, his self-admitted former socialist collectivist self (BEFORE actually hearing Murray Rothbard in person, to be 'converted' into the "Mr. Libertarian" that he is today) occasionally leaks out in his arguments; this is such remnant vestige of his former soft adherence to his former philosophical leanings.

To say that your privacy is not a right is to assume your physical body, NOT the expression of the said body, belongs to the commons, which is wholly a socialist collectivist meme.

Also what makes privacy a 'negative right' (natural right)?

It DOESN'T require a State-intervention to protect it like all other 'positive rights': you can and should defend your body, with or without the State.

But glad he's raising this issue, because it's good to debate people whom you respect; hey even brilliant people can be wrong. Judge Nap. takes my vote on this one.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

"The right to privacy" is a mistaken blurb

What we really mean is "The right not to be surveilled upon"

That is a completely different concept, and he makes a simplistic mistake and tosses it in the wrong pile.

It is a 'negative right' and belongs in the first grouping he writes about.

Someone should point that out to him, it's a simple logical error. I'm curious if he would admit the error.

"The right to privacy" is a media coined term, which should tell you its value. They always use terminology which puts the government in the best possible light. Spying and surveillance sound sinister.

Recall in the recent past when 'sniper' became 'sharpshooter' if they were US related.

Also friendly governments are said by name, but implied enemy governments are 'leftist' or 'right wing' or 'hardline'.

Concur

That's precisely as I see it, or, an extension of property rights, correct?

I hesitiate to mention the Constitution in this area as per the negative connotations implied by Lysander Spooner.

Mr. Block has no right to

testicles either but providence has granted him that. I move that if Mr. Block wants to remove my right to privacy than I should be able to remove his testicles...seeing as how he isn't using them.

so i presume if technology

so i presume if technology develops to a point where anyone can eavesdrop and view anyone else through their walls, and fly personally owned robotic drones above anyone else's airspace (umm, how much of the air above your property up to the atmosphere is "yours"?), then the right to privacy thereby vanishes as well? after all, there is no physical aggression involved, so any legal restriction on such spying/intrusion would be unjustified aggression against individuals not harming anyone.

of course, we can re define x-ray or otherwise intrusive cameras as extensions of our bodies(?) or define them as weapons. pretty arbitrary, but possible. it would be a harder case to make for super targeted listening devices. i suppose competing soundproofing technology for those who can afford it would be the sole means of defense, since the eavesdropper cannot rightfully be punished legally.

and someone spying into the window of a dressing minor i suppose is morally and legally guilt free, according to the nutty professor (block) and the NAP crowd.

as for airspace over one's property, it has never been either theorized or adjudicated as far as i know. perhaps some anarcho-genius can explain to us that, a priori axioms PROVE THAT all the airspace over our property extending into the atmosphere, and in fact infinitely into space time, is the the rightful property of the "homesteader" and that airlines should pay passage fees to anyone who's airspace they fly (trespass) over.

anarcho-comedians?

another example of how this rights business is arbitrary (and hilarious) and involves definitions and decisions that are arbitrary...

suppose someone follows you around calling your mother a wh0re, it is arbitrary to say whether it is "aggression" or not, since no blow is struck. whether he trails you by 5 feet or shadows your person (ghosts you lol) or makes threatening body gestures, makes you uncomfortable, offends you, insults you, or if some bit of his stray spittle is caught by the wind and strikes your person, whether that is aggression and whether at that point you can shoot him or merely punch him in the nose is ALL arbitrary.

the law is what WE DECIDE it should be, and can get enough people to agree to enforce.

walter block and his ilk are a joke.

This site has become mostly a

This site has become mostly a joke among those of us seriously working to promote liberty. Most of the conversations revolve around 9/11 truth and chemtrails. But I saw an interesting article poster here from Rothbard (which I have read many times) and decided to check the comments.

Sure enough, your post has me laughing at your complete lack of understanding of where liberty comes from that I even decide to log in to reply. I logged in but then read the rest of your post and came to this line at the end:

'the law is what WE DECIDE it should be, and can get enough people to agree to enforce.'

Immediately I knew not to even waste my time. You have no business being here. You're either a shill, or neocon, but you sir are no friend of liberty.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

i think you realized you had

i think you realized you had no counter argument so moved along.

Good job

Good job on figuring out the situation with BILL3.

On the other hand, I think your conclusion about the Daily Paul is incorrect and counterproductive. There are many people here who are open to "seriously working to promote liberty." The question is: What are you doing to promote liberty which is so effective? If it's not some sort of secret plan, you ought to tell us about it, instead of making blanket derisive comments about the site being a joke.

Stephan Kinsella

I think this is badly written

I think what Dr. Block meant is that there is no right to privacy divorced from property rights. You privacy rights are an aspect of your property rights. Now some nudnik is gonna use this to claim that libertarians don't believe in privacy rights.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Cyril's picture

Far fetched, IMO

I like Walter usually, and maybe I missed something, but on this one I think it's intellectually far fetched...

A bit like saying: there's no right to breathing specifically here or there.

Well, okay...

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

"I'm pretty sure Rothbard was

"I'm pretty sure Rothbard was just trying to illustrate that our aforementioned "right to privacy" is just a vein of property rights."

I thought that was the point Block was making. That tapping your phone, or accessing your email is a trespass on your private property, not a violation of a "privacy right." I agree with him.

After a re read perhaps so

Badly written I will say at least. At best he is arguing semantics of libertarianism, hardly an effort worth any time addressing with such a long article, don't you think?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record