Comment: so i presume if technology

(See in situ)

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.


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.