It's obvious that one has a right to privacy in the context of property rights and if derived from property rights.
It's not so obvious that if you walk down the street naked, you have a right to have thugs shoot someone for taking a photo of you and passing it around. Is that really obvious to you? Because that is essentially the consequence of disagreeing with Block's point.
In particular, Block's point is that aside from property rights (i.e., the negative right that people have no business disturbing the property of others) there is no fundamental positive right to privacy.
Did you even read what Block wrote, Michael? Do you really advocate the state attacking those who photograph you when you expose your private matters and share the photos? What of responsibility?
P.S. I think we might be in the same time zone at the moment. It's 5:16 PM here.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: