-17 votes

The Nutty Professor (Walter Blockhead), Arbitrary Rights, and NAP-headed hoes

Someone call a lawyer, a team of talmudic scholars, a psychoanalyst and a priest. The "rights theorists" are at it again, and no word or meaning is safe. And call the sheriff. Language is wanted as an accessory in the murder of logic.

http://www.dailypaul.com/292421/walter-block-says-you-have-n...

Block has determined through his incisive reasoning that privacy, outside of that afforded by property, is no right, according to "Libertarian theory." He does not elaborate further.

Presumably rights emerge into nature merely in act of acquiring property. Prior to that their existence is hazy. Like the Big Bang, we don't know how they emerged, but if we start there with a "given" we can spin out a web of supposedly logical conclusions.

Just don't pay any attention to all the shoddy, haphazard assumptions and arbitrary definitions, decisions and determinations these "theorists" rely on to keep the rickety structure glued together.

According to Blockhead, privacy is a right only to the extent that it stems from property. Presumably then, if property fails to provide privacy in the future, then privacy will cease to exist, rightfully and justly.

Consider. If technology develops to a point where anyone can eavesdrop and view anyone else through their walls, from great distance, then per Block, no law could justly be enforced against such intrusion as it is not aggression. Privacy is not a right. It is merely an incidental consequence to the right of property (which is inherent in nature like the laws of physics according to "libertarian theorists").

We are probably not far from the point where personally owned drones can be flown above anyone else's airspace (umm, how much of the air above your property up to the atmosphere is "yours"?). So then the right to privacy thereby vanishes as well? After all, there is no physical aggression involved, so no legal restriction on such spying/intrusion would be justified. That would be aggression against individuals who are 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, I suppose. 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.

Someone spying into the window of a dressing minor would be morally and legally guilt-free, according to Block and the NAP crowd. No violation of the NAP, no infringement upon anyone's rights (privacy is not a right, remember), therefore no moral or ethical, or legal, violation.

As for airspace over one's property, it has never been either theorized or adjudicated as far as i know.

Perhaps some anarcho-geniuses will 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. Very practical and reasonable, these anarcho-comedians. Thanks for clearing up the real tough issues!

Another example of how this rights business is arbitrary (and hilarious) and involves definitions and decisions that are completely subjective and made up...

Suppose someone follows you around calling your mother a wh0re. Can you slap them in the mouth? Aggression or not? Who's the aggressor?

Don't cheat, no peaking at prior legal precedent churned out by those dens of violence and oppression, known as law courts. This one is tough, it needs to go to direct to the supreme council of anarchocap theorists.

It is arbitrary to say whether it is "aggression" or not, since no blow is struck. Whether this as$hole trails you by 5 feet or shadows your person (ghosts you, in technical parlance) 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.

Arbitrary.

Important questions like these can't be left to anyone. Walter Block and other experts on the NAP should be consulted by the hundred thousand drive through, quick-serve, and dine-in arbitration agencies that would flourish under true freedom. (lol)

They need not even ALL necessarily have their own Blackwater agencies enforcing their rulings. Since no right to privacy exists, they can just use the best in modern spying and identification, tracking and biotechnology to observe, report, track, rate and judge the serfs, er, citizens of this new techno-feudalism, and its architecture of enforcing the NAP, without force.

Moving onto more pressing concerns.

In this shining sea of lagoons and lilly pads of freedom, some deserts and dark lagoons will undoubtedly exist. Some might surround completely others. In fact, all will be surrounded by a number of others, by definition.

Let a thousand nations bloom. Also a thousand conflicts, in need of resolution. Let a thousand communities have insufficient access to transportation, waterways, defensible borders. Let many of them be surrounded by hostile communities.

I suppose transportation agencies would also flourish, offering to transport those unfortunate enough to be in between or surrounded by privately owned anarchommunities which don't let others pass. Suppose some open city is surrounded on four sides by a44holes. These rescue air transport agencies would swoop in and fly the stranded sovereign individuals in the dry patch over into a more hospitable community.

This is where we really need the wisdom of the anarcho-geniuses to come in.

Exactly how far into the sky does my property extend? This is no easy question. Only the iron-clad, impenetrable, cold fusion reactors of Logic that are the minds of these theorists can determine such an important question. It carries with it the Fate of all future private drone and air travel Law.

Disregard all previous precedent, and coercive law -- that is all a product of tyranny, force and the bad old days of arbitrary violence.

Libertarian theory needs to define it all anew for us from really smart geniuses like Block, so that private competing arbitration agencies and drive-through courts/judges with protection agency enforcers will determine IMPORTANT questions.

The burning question of how much of the airspace above one's acre lot of property is also one's property, in which one can rightfully launch the nuclear warheads to which all free individuals are entitled, as owner of said private property, with unlimited property rights, needs a logical answer. We are waiting, Block.

People of brain.

Please take the nutty Professor above referenced and his dream team of NAPhead geniuses lightly, like I do. For the sake of your own mental well being. They are anarcho-comedians, good enough for amusement. Little else.

The law is what we decide it should be, and can get enough people to agree to enforce. Because it is REASONABLE for human well being.

Our rights are what we assert them to be, what we decide to demand others respect, and what we can mutually uphold because REASONABLE people agree and throw in with us.

Chuck these nutbags and their jackas$sery from serious conversation, please o pretty please?

Thnx

Comment viewing options

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

The right to privacy is a media term

Should really be "the right not to be surveilled"

Which is completely different. The media uses the right to privacy instead of surveillance or spying since it casts the government in a more positive way.

It's like sniper vs sharpshooter
Or gun control vs gun safety

This professor is using faulty logic.

Wow

I think you've officially blown the head gasket. If the new concept is too much for you, don't try to swallow it whole, you'll choke, instead take one concept at
a time and dwell upon it till you reach an enlightenment. By the way should we ban eyes since they can be used to look at someone at an inappropriate time?, or binoculars or telescopes? To solve that problem I've bought curtains instead of yelling THERE OUT TO BE A LAW!

its not a new concept, i've

its not a new concept, i've been reading these dopey arguments for years. they're no less dopey now.

i still hold stubbornly to my crazy notion that filming a 10 yr old undressing and selling those images should be illegal. i realize this makes me an awful human being and a statist tyrant, but i was just born evil.

Just which part of that do you think should be illegal?

For example, should I be allowed to take pictures of my naked baby? Also, in some countries, people have enough sense to separate nudity and sexuality. In those countries, children run around naked in the streets. Should a tourist be allowed to take pictures of such a scene? My grandma used to take pictures of me running around the yard naked when I was little. Would you send my grandma to jail?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

good points. it's up to the

good points. it's up to the people to determine via the law. it surely is not something to be proven axiomatically by the nutty professor,

the people and the common law

the people and the common law courts, which have created a right to privacy in modern American law.

Ventura 2012

correct, it's not a new concept

"filming a 10 yr old undressing and selling those images should be illegal"

It IS illegal. So at best you are defending the status quo.

Keep in mind though, that lack of privacy rights is not a threat to your keeping your scenario illegal. Walter Blockhead's perspective is not a threat to the status quo. In reality the nutty professor is actually defending your status quo.

It's not a new concept.

Right to privacy would be the new concept.

not at all. the logical chain

not at all. the logical chain of theory from block would permit the legality of the above scenario, if he were to be logically consistent. i realize its not a threat, i am just pointing out how dumb it is.

I think you're reading into

I think you're reading into it, more than what he wrote.

not at all. if someone is not

not at all. if someone is not violating anyone's rights or using any force or aggression, then according to block, it would be ethically and morally wrong to use coercion against them. they are doing no harm. pictures of a minor is just one of many possible examples of things we choose to make illegal even though they are not violations of NAP.

It is not right to privacy

It is not right to privacy [or the violation thereof] that makes your scenario illegal. Block's written argument against right to privacy has nothing to do with your chains of logic elaborated here whatsoever. The closest to his being relevant is in his suggesting that you [me, us] use an alternative route to rights in arguing this and other scenarios. This just so happens to be in line with the status quo. Perhaps you are clouded by your distaste for what you seem to think of as anarchism. Certainly Block is an anarchist, but keep in mind, anarchists don't want to change EVERYTHING. I have no doubt that you can find numerous issues of contention with Dr. Blockhead, perhaps even some things on this page yet to be elaborated, but the particular issue you have honed in here is quite clearly not one of them.

yes it does. my argument is

yes it does. my argument is sound and applies directly to blocks position.

he believes that no coercion is just except to prevent the violation of rights as he defines them. privacy is not a right, per block. ergo, a law against this scenario of privacy violation would not be ethical or correct to block. case closed.

I'm referring to the

I'm referring to the potentially real scenario of your selling naked photos of your neighbor, not the scenario in your head in which it is "privacy violation". And by the way, you keep referring to Block's thoughts on ethics. The piece of his you have linked from HERE does not deal with ethics. If you care to speculate in more detail on how Block might react to your scenario, I suggest you find and interject material to support your thus far imaginary contention. Should you do that, keep in mind where you and Walter might truly differ. I suspect you two would largely differ in perspective of the extent to which how many rights or laws need to be literally elaborated and detailed [on the books] to support living henceforth in an ethically stable society of jurisprudence.

i'm not sure its worthwhile

i'm not sure its worthwhile to continue going back and forth. i increasingly don't know what you're claiming or trying to say.

block says there is no right to privacy. block believes that just use of force is solely to defend rights, all deriving from property, of which privacy is not one.

my OP was about Block's overall beliefs, arbitrary claims about rights, and NAP. i am not required to write a biography of block for you, or copy and paste every text of anarchocap theory, or their rights theory, or NAP theory of just force. if you aren't familiar with their claims, or want to set up false hurdles, that's not my problem.

And?

It is illegal now, it is happening now. So how is the government is going to fix it?

not relevant to the

not relevant to the discussion at hand. not possible to answer.

it is good in itself that people are punished for selling pictures of other people's children naked to perverts.

just as it is a good in itself that people are punished for torturing animals. animals have no rights. no violation of NAP. still good law, IMO. likewise, people who have s3x with animals. animals have no rights, NAP does not apply to animals, and no other human's rights are violated. yet we punish it anyway, less for the sake of the animals than to regulate some behavior that we deem beyond the pale.

or stop signs and traffic laws, which are of course tyrannical coercion according to NAP. and drunk driving laws.

at the risk of digression, i am just pointing out that the idea of NAP as the basis of all force and law is severely flawed. starting from such a premise, you end up with nonsense and anarcho-comedy.

really?

really?

You advocate for a system based on force, which clearly does not work as a deterrent either. NAP is a principal, it won't work 100% either, not everyone is going to believe it yet alone practice it, the difference is that it's VOLUNTARY, without coercion of force. People are going to do what ever they feel like it, be it legal lawful or otherwise, you are in favor of trying to force people to behave in certain way, through out the human kind history it never worked, yet you persist with the same idea and fully convinced that it will work this time, if only there was a law. Do you see it yet? People are people, there are bad and good, laws wont change that, they only frustrate the good people and allow the bad people to prosper at the expense of the good ones.

yes, really. if confused,

yes, really. if confused, just re read.

Go ahead

Keep doing the same thing, expecting a different result.

FYI, at present countries do charge for the over flight of their territories.

cool. maybe you can make a

cool. maybe you can make a powerpoint on how airlines can pay each person over who's private airspace they fly.

Block lays out a cohesive

Block lays out a cohesive argument and you give a long winded emotional response that counters nothing. That's why no serious freedom-movement individuals spend much time on this site. Lot's of naive sheeple here or downright misinformation agents who say things that are right in line with arbitrary gov laws trying to claim freedom is arbitrary. If you want to talk 9/11 Truth or chemtrail nonsense just keep it hidden here so you don't damage the hard work those of us are doing.

"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

O. what did i say that was

O. what did i say that was wrong?

Block is right

You are wrong.

Property is the basis of the exercise of all rights. The right to speak is determined by who owns the ground on which you stand. The right to publish depends on who owns the presses. The right to keep the fruits of your labor depends on who owns...you.

The so-called 'right to privacy' is dependent on your ability to use your property in such a way as to remain concealed from outside observation. As technology changes, there will be new challenges for people who wish not to be observed by those outside their property. Nevertheless, it is their right to use their property as they wish to keep their privacy, just as it is the right of outsiders to use their eyes, ears, cameras, listening devices, heat sensors, etc., to look at the world...including the property of their neighbor. Creepy...yeah. Thankfully the vast majority of people do not peep into windows, or watch their neighbors with binoculars...and virtually none own heat sensors or bionic ears.

The real danger to our 'privacy' is not our neighbors, but our governments. Governments should be prevented from snooping, not because you have a right to privacy, but because governments have extraordinary power to make your life hell. What was Washington's phrase: Governments are a dangerous servant and a fearsome master? That is why we need to keep it on a tight chain...not because of any 'right to privacy.'

If you attempt to create a 'right to privacy' that is not based on property, you will need to create a whole range of restrictions on what others may look at and with what technology. It will require the state to monitor your monitoring, and it will legitimize an oppressive state apparatus to 'protect our privacy' just as they have created an police state apparatus 'to keep us safe.'

Block is right. Privacy is an outcome of property. If you properly define 'property,' and accept its' limitations, you can resolve many of the conflicts in the debates over privacy.

i'm not trying to create any

i'm not trying to create any rights. law creates rights. not property.

property is up for grabs by the stronger party in absence of law, it confers no rights.

so then watching a 10 yr old

so then watching a 10 yr old undress through their window across the street is not a crime? taking photos of it, not a crime? selling them, not a crime?

no right to privacy means no legal consequence to invading anther's privacy. no aggression, no crime?

"watching a 10 yr old undress

"watching a 10 yr old undress through their window across the street"

How is that a crime?

By the way, selling photos of a naked 10 year old IS a crime in most jurisdictions, and privacy rights don't come into play whatsoever. And as a matter of fact, if there were such a thing as right to privacy, it would be used to defend people's rights to privately buy and sell photos of naked 10 year olds.

if there is no right to

if there is no right to privacy, such activity couldn't be illegal, according to the ethics of block which he would advocate be the law. simple enough.

He's saying the exact

He's saying the exact opposite. simpler enough.

false.

false.

:p~~~ ~~ ~