Is There a Right to Privacy under the NAP?

[paleocon1]

Lets say that we are co-workers at a large modern day corporation and you are blocking my path to advancement. Not out of malice it just happens that your TPS reports are better than mine & Boss knows it. Snooping on the net I find some data regarding you which if presented to the Boss & HR just right will get you walked out by Security- causing the Company bad PR is considered a firing offense and they don't take chances.What have you done? Maybe went to an AmRen Conference, or donated to Ron Paul or referred to Barry in an unflattering way or dismiised Mike Brown as a thug orbelong to an association where members take and pass around naughty pics of eachother (gang of nudists) or it turns out that your thughts on religion are out of step with the local community......................................... .......

Soooooo, by outing you have I violated the NAP?

[Ronin Truth]

The NAP is about aggression, not privacy. Keep it simple.

Is the Privacy Principle about non-aggression?

[paleocon1]

There are many different ways to be aggressive.

[Cabal]

Privacy means different things to different people, it seems.

I suspect you'd have to define exactly what you mean by privacy.

[Ronin Truth]

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

[juleswin]

There are many different ways to be aggressive.

Like being followed around by paparazzi's all day in public so they can get the perfect picture of you doing something silly in public so they can post it in tabloid newspapers?

My guess is that form of privacy aggression will continue unless the owner of the private road where it is happening comes out against such acts. They still cannot trespass on your property to invade your privacy.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[r3volution 3.0]

Lets say that we are co-workers at a large modern day corporation and you are blocking my path to advancement. Not out of malice it just happens that your TPS reports are better than mine & Boss knows it. Snooping on the net I find some data regarding you which if presented to the Boss & HR just right will get you walked out by Security- causing the Company bad PR is considered a firing offense and they don't take chances.What have you done? Maybe went to an AmRen Conference, or donated to Ron Paul or referred to Barry in an unflattering way or dismiised Mike Brown as a thug orbelong to an association where members take and pass around naughty pics of eachother (gang of nudists) or it turns out that your thughts on religion are out of step with the local community......................................... .......

Soooooo, by outing you have I violated the NAP?

Absolutely not. You've not violated the other person's property rights, ergo no aggression.

Privacy means different things to different people, it seems.

I suspect you'd have to define exactly what you mean by privacy.

Yup, "right to privacy" - as understood in the mainstream - is terribly vague. Searching through the library's microfilm archive for articles about your co-worker's criminal record and reporting your findings to your boss (while a dick move) is entirely different from, say, breaking into their house and looking through their personal papers (the difference being that property rights were violated in one case but not the other). As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a right to privacy as such. Everything worthwhile covered under that label is already covered by the idea that property rights must be respected.

[CaptUSA]

Soooooo, by outing you have I violated the NAP?

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, you're being a dick and should be shunned for life. In this scenario, your path to advancement isn't being blocked by the other person, it's being blocked by you. How about learning how to do a better job instead of tearing someone else down because they are working harder than you.

[Cabal]

Yup, "right to privacy" - as understood in the mainstream - is terribly vague. Searching through the library's microfilm archive for articles about your co-worker's criminal record and reporting your findings to your boss (while a dick move) is entirely different from, say, breaking into their house and looking through their personal papers (the difference being that property rights were violated in one case but not the other). As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a right to privacy as such. Everything worthwhile covered under that label is already covered by the idea that property rights must be respected.

Yeah, this discussion has come up before, and there seem to be people here, and more outside of libertarian-leaning circles, who have some rather inconsistent expectations of what they generally package into "privacy," so the idea about 'privacy rights' is a bit arbitrary and ambiguous. Within the context of NAP, however, it's all relatively simple--there are only property rights. Of course this is speaking about rights as moral claims, and not legal privileges given and taken by the State. As far as I can tell, there are no exclusive "privacy rights" that do not already fall into the realm of property rights. This is true for a lot of enumerated 'rights' as well--there is no exclusive "right of free speech" either, but free speech is already necessarily included and secured within property rights (anyone who dictates how another uses or allows use of their own property, or anyone who means to physically prevent use of such property is already in violation of property rights--calling it a free speech issue is just superfluous).

One's rights do not extend beyond their own property, so where privacy is concerned, that's as much privacy as one can reasonably expect, as well. In any case, we seem to be of the same mind on the subject.

[DamianTV]

Taking anything from anyone by force is in and of itself an Act of Aggression, therefore I believe Yes, there is.

The Rights of the individual are only defined by the equal Rights of others. One persons Rights end where another persons Rights begin.

Now, to put the current theory to the test, we pretty much have to take it to the maximum form of Invasion of Privacy. Would it not be an Act of Aggression to observe another individual, or two concenting individuals in every thought and action that can be made? If one says no, then the individual has no Right to Privacy while having sex, going to the bathroom, showering, or any activity that the individual may take. Once the observation can be made, it then becomes subject to approval by others. Then comes the true acts of aggression, whereby the individual is denied the priviledge of performing such an action or thinking such a thought. And these acts of aggression are to be carried out through the Monopoly of Violence. The thing is, Violence is not always physical brutality, but can be administered in many different forms. If you eat bacon and your landlord has a problem with it, first by having the ability to make such an observation, then by acting upon the conclusions of that observation, various forms of Violence can be applied. Such as Fines, Denial of the Right to eat Bacon, Legal Consequences, Reputational Consequences, and possibly Eviction. Surveillance, which is the most oppressive form of the Invasion of Privacy will apply to the entire range of activities that can take place within the spectrum, from the most trivial observation, which most people will tolerate, to the most intrusive. Within this collection of observations, judgement can be made and applied, which becomes the most oppressive form of Violence. When everythign you do becomes subject to the approval of anyone but the individual themselves, you have the ultimate form of Violence, which is Oppression. You may not eat bacon, salt, red meat, smoke, view porn, talk politicis, think for yourself, have sex, drive a car, you have a Form of Violence.

Another thing to consider is that the "Right to Privacy" is not literally enumerated in the 4th Amendment. However, the 4th Amendment is considered to include "Privacy" as a Penumbra (soft edge of a shadow) Right. If one has the Right to Privacy, the Unreasonable Observations can not be made in the first place, and thereby disables the consequencial ability to issue Judgement against the Individual.

We choose to forego many of our Rights quite frequently. When you visit a friend, you voluntarily give up some of your Rights, but that does not mean that you do not still have them. It depends on when and where absolute claims to Rights can be applied. For example, you have the Right to Bear Arms, but you may be willing to temporarily give up those Rights in order to go shopping or visit a friend. The extent of the applications of these Rights ends at the end of Property. You may also have a Right to decree that no one is allowed to enter your home while carrying firearms, but the end of that Right ends at the end of Property, thus, you do NOT have a Right to decree what any other individual is allowed to do outside your own home. Basically, no guns on your property, and thats fine, but you cant step into someone elses home and make ANY demands of obedience, like you cant own guns at ALL, period. That kind of decree is well beyond the scope of your authority. Similarly, the Right to Privacy is voluntarily surrendered by those granted permission on anothers property. This is pretty obvious. You visit a friend, you give that Privacy for the ability to interact with your friend. Duh. It doesnt mean that you completely surrender ALL Privacy what so ever. You still have the ability to decree who you will allow to make observations of your interactions. Just because you talk with your friend in their home, it doesnt mean you are also giving "implied concent" for Google or the NSA to monitor every action you take in your friends house. You are limiting who can observe your interactions to your friend and other human observers only, which is still within your Right.

Since the Invasion of Privacy is the precursor to Judgement and ultimately the Oppression of all Thoughts and Actions, I would say there is no Right that is more critical to the Non Aggression Principle. The 4th Amendment was not created to allow Criminals to conduct Criminal Behavior without consequence, it was created to protect the common man from the absolute judgement of those who gaze through the Watcher's Eye. Dig deep enough beneath every man's skin and you will find a skeleton; something that you disapprove of. Infractions of Invasion of Privacy by any controlling faction, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect, chilling in their nature, and, unless checked, lead to a utter complete and total disrespect for the Rights of the individual. After all, who better is to police the common man than themselves? The one form of surveillance he can not escape is from their own watchful eyes. When those actions are adjusted by the common man to comply with all forms of authority, the common man becomes completely mentally enslaved to that authority. The Chilling Effect of the cumulative invasions of Privacy alters the behavior of the entire population to become subservient to the controllers. Men no longer conduct their actions as free men, but as adult-children. They obey blindly and do what they are told to do, think what they are told to think, and dare not challenge any who issue orders. They will not make any effort to persuade other men to act or think as free men, but as the good obedient slave. They will lash out at all who show any sign of opposition, despite the controllers having no genuine interest in being their benefactors, but oppressors. Obey your oppressors is the behavioral result in a society where Privacy of the individual is completely and wholy disrespected. How could the Invasion of Privacy not be at the very top of the list of Rights under the Non Aggression Principle? Our First Amendment guarantees the Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Press. It is our ablity to communicate. When what we communicate is to be scruitinized to such a degree that the common man can be judged and imprisoned for what is said, how is that not Oppression? Does the common man not have the Right to freely express what he thinks without being subject to the scruitny of censorship?

For every Right we have, there is also mostly a negative form of that Right. We have the Right to be Private, and we have a Right to speak what we think and to be heard without being subject to approval. We have the Right to Bear Arms, but the negative form of that Right is that we are not Required to always carry a gun. We have the Right (enumerated) to not quarter soldiers, but the negative form of that Right is that we can offer to quarter solderis at our own discression. The First and Fourth Amendment Rights are opposite forms of the same Right. We can choose to give up one to have the other, but both are subject to our own discression. We can choose to try to make ourselves heard, or we can choose to keep our thoughts and ideas to ourselves, or only within allowed company, which is also subject to the discression of the individual. Just as we experience the oppression of the Invasion of Privacy, the opposite form of that is to limit what we can publicly say as well, through Censorship. Basically, what you hear and what you say are both being violated as much as oppressors can perform. When both of these Rights are gone, to speak and be heard, or to keep ones thoughts to themselves, the Chilling Effect is that the mind of the common man is no longer his own, and his thoughts become the thoughts of those who proclaim to be their leaders. The Violence is to Oppress both the Right to Speak, and the Right to Think according to ones own free will.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Finally, a post where these are extremely appropriate! Yup, privacy is way too subjective to be a right.

[Origanalist]

I trying to figure out how data on the internet is in any way private (unless it's encrpted, password protected and in a domain completely under your control). If you posted information on a billboard for all to see and someone told your boss about it, would that be an invasion of your privacy?

Now if someone broke into your home and cracked your safe and stole those compromising photos of you with a goat ... now there's an issue, but it's not about privacy.

Damn, he has those too????

[heavenlyboy34]

Damn, he has those too????

Ur goat shenanigans are already all over the interwebz. :P

[Origanalist]

Ur goat shenanigans are already all over the interwebz. :P

Where do you think all those screaming goat video's came from?

[Origanalist]

If the NAP doesn't afford me the right to privacy then screw it. To put in nicely.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If the NAP doesn't afford me the right to privacy then screw it. To put in nicely.

You don't have a right to privacy. A right to privacy would imply that you possess the privilege of forcing someone else to provide your privacy for you, or stopping other people from doing as they choose. It is no more legitimate than a right to food, shelter, healthcare, education, welfare, or any other positive right.

If you don't want someone looking into your window, for example, build a fence or close your curtains.

[Origanalist]

You don't have a right to privacy. A right to privacy would imply that you possess the privilege of forcing someone else to provide your privacy for you, or stopping other people from doing as they choose. It is no more legitimate than a right to food, shelter, healthcare, education, welfare, or any other positive right.

If you don't want someone looking into your window, for example, build a fence or close your curtains.

Ya, $#@! that. Suppose I do everything you say and someone still manages to install a camera in one of my light switches? I will have my privacy no matter what your NAP says. And I won't be asking somebody else to enforce it. If somebody "chooses" to intrude upon it, let them be forewarned, I will not accept the premise you are laying down.

[William Tell]

If the NAP doesn't afford me the right to privacy then screw it. To put in nicely.

Yeah, this is one of the reasons why I don't run around saying I subscribe to the NAP.

[Origanalist]

Yeah, this is one of the reasons why I don't run around saying I subscribe to the NAP.

Indeed, there are a few. I am in agreement with the concept, but, some peoples idea of non aggression does't exactly match my own.

[acesfull]

The only privacy we hold is in our home, and with modern technology privacy in the home will soon be obsolete.

My .02

Acesfull

[Cabal]

Ya, $#@! that. Suppose I do everything you say and someone still manages to install a camera in one of my light switches? I will have my privacy no matter what your NAP says. And I won't be asking somebody else to enforce it. If somebody "chooses" to intrude upon it, let them be forewarned, I will not accept the premise you are laying down.

If someone breaks into your home, or enters your home by defrauding you, and proceeds to install property (thereby altering your home) without permission, then they've already violated your property rights anyway, which NAP prohibits. Privacy has nothing to do with this; it's a matter of property rights.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah, this discussion has come up before, and there seem to be people here, and more outside of libertarian-leaning circles, who have some rather inconsistent expectations of what they generally package into "privacy," so the idea about 'privacy rights' is a bit arbitrary and ambiguous. Within the context of NAP, however, it's all relatively simple--there are only property rights. Of course this is speaking about rights as moral claims, and not legal privileges given and taken by the State. As far as I can tell, there are no exclusive "privacy rights" that do not already fall into the realm of property rights. This is true for a lot of enumerated 'rights' as well--there is no exclusive "right of free speech" either, but free speech is already necessarily included and secured within property rights (anyone who dictates how another uses or allows use of their own property, or anyone who means to physically prevent use of such property is already in violation of property rights--calling it a free speech issue is just superfluous).

One's rights do not extend beyond their own property, so where privacy is concerned, that's as much privacy as one can reasonably expect, as well. In any case, we seem to be of the same mind on the subject.

Absolutely. Privacy, freedom of speech - also freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc - can all be expressed in terms of property rights. Likewise with Locke's classic proviso "life, liberty, and property," which, to my ear, sounds like "copper, zinc, and metal." I think the reason that some libertarians are reluctant to reduce everything to property is a feeling that this somehow diminishes the importance of human life, denies spiritual values, is too materialistic, etc. People who believe that must not realize how universal the concept of property really is. Every human action or interaction can be understood in terms of property rights: being exercised, exchanged, or violated. Every ethical system, not just libertarianism, is ultimately a set of rules governing property rights. Who gets to use what, when, and under what conditions - all ethics is an attempt to answer that question. Even those ethical theories which don't see themselves as such could be translated into the language of property, without changing their meaning at all. It's an amazingly elegant tool.

P.S.

I read the thread you cited and....

.....more than a little confusion there.

Some of the posters seemed to think that Block's position allowed the state unlimited powers to spy on people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is the state prohibited per libertarian ethics from any spying which would violate property rights (just as individuals are prohibited from this), but it can be further restricted in ways which individuals cannot.

First, it has to be realized that “the state” is just a name for a group of individuals. These individuals have no more rights than any other individuals, and – moreover – they can be required to forfeit some of those rights as a condition of employment. For instance, if we like, we could pass a constitutional amendment requiring the President to go out on the White House lawn every day at high noon and do the Hokie Pokie. Why is this okay, when it would be criminal to force your neighbor to do the same? Because the President volunteered for the job, accepting the terms of employment. It's no different than any corporation requiring its employees to adhere to certain policies – or, more broadly, anyone being required to fulfill any obligation they have voluntarily accepted. In any case, if the person does not like these conditions they don't have to accept the job, or – if they already have – they can quit.

So, while we cannot prohibit a private individual from taking your picture in public, we can certainly prohibit the state (i.e. any agent thereof) from doing this. Such a prohibition could be enforced by punishing the employee concerned (pursuant to the terms he accepted as a condition of employment) or by making this information inadmissible in the state's court, etc. Likewise with all possible forms of state surveillance (or anything else we want to prohibit the state from doing).

Of course, Block's an anarchist, so he's thinking of a world where there's no state in the first place.

But, if we suppose the state does exist, what I said above is how his views on privacy would apply.

[DamianTV]

You don't have a right to privacy. A right to privacy would imply that you possess the privilege of forcing someone else to provide your privacy for you, or stopping other people from doing as they choose. It is no more legitimate than a right to food, shelter, healthcare, education, welfare, or any other positive right.

If you don't want someone looking into your window, for example, build a fence or close your curtains.

It doesnt require someone else be forced, as a man can defend his own rights just fine. Nor can any person be forced to be a Cop, a Burger Flipper, or to have a camera in their house.

The Right to Privacy is nothing more than the Right to be left alone. And that, sadly, is something no one does any more.

---

What I dont get is why there has been a Human Right to Privacy declared, but over half of the asstard monkey brains somehow now believe that this Right never existed? Im not even going to address the Non Agression Principle on the matter, invading your Privacy is an Act of Aggression. The NAP also does not mean do nothing when your Rights are violated, it only means that the individual should never be the one to start the fight. Kicking in my front door to cause me harm and deprive me of my property is a violation of the NAP and thusly deserves a swift and prompt ass kicking, and then some. My Privacy is my Property. What I do is not subject to approval of anyone but myself. But I digress as I will only repeat a post that apparently very few have bothered to read.

[paleocon1]

I trying to figure out how data on the internet is in any way private (unless it's encrpted, password protected and in a domain completely under your control). If you posted information on a billboard for all to see and someone told your boss about it, would that be an invasion of your privacy?

Now if someone broke into your home and cracked your safe and stole those compromising photos of you with a goat ... now there's an issue, but it's not about privacy.

I am trying to tease out here what folks really think about the concept of privacy in a libertarian world where NAP is being relatively well honored. The sort of 'negative' information going to a Boss or other person with power would for the purposes of this thread be info acquired by eavesdropping in the classic sense or by its modern equivalent- hacking. Do I have a right for my Boss/Wife/Pastor/local newspaper style section not be given PIO indicating that I ride goats bareback as this would be personally just as destructive as a solar shade over the entire earth?

Or more serious- my hobby is torturing cute animals and children (all without violating property rights) yet behaviours which would cause any community of normal people to 100% ostracise me thus making life brutish, mean and probably short (all without violating property rights) were they to become aware.

Is there a case for a 'don't ask, don't tell' social taboo corollary to the NAP?

[Origanalist]

If someone breaks into your home, or enters your home by defrauding you, and proceeds to install property (thereby altering your home) without permission, then they've already violated your property rights anyway, which NAP prohibits. Privacy has nothing to do with this; it's a matter of property rights.

Good point, and apologies to Feeding the Abscess for my grouchiness. The point about stopping others from doing as they choose is a point where I sometimes come up against a brick wall in these discussions. I generally don't give a damn what other people do as long as they aren't dragging me into it but sometimes this gets pushed in these discussions into hypothetical situations that I just can't agree with (can't think of a example at the moment).

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, this is one of the reasons why I don't run around saying I subscribe to the NAP.

I eventually threw out the NAP to. There are some obvious problems even most secular libertarians have to it. And as a Christian libertarian* (*well, sort of libertarian at any rate) I believe that things like homosexuality and adultery, especially in public, do far more to harm society as a whole than mild "aggression", and also that some forms of aggression cannot be immoral (say, stopping someone who's about to shoot himself and taking away the gun etc.)

That doesn't mean I don't see any good in the NAP but I don't accept it.

[Ronin Truth]

State the NAP.

I dare you.

[paleocon1]

I eventually threw out the NAP to. There are some obvious problems even most secular libertarians have to it. And as a Christian libertarian* (*well, sort of libertarian at any rate) I believe that things like homosexuality and adultery, especially in public, do far more to harm society as a whole than mild "aggression",

define 'mild' aggression

and also that some forms of aggression cannot be immoral (say, stopping someone who's about to shoot himself and taking away the gun etc.)

That doesn't mean I don't see any good in the NAP but I don't accept it.

From where do you claim the Authority to interfere in another's decision to end their life? Simply your opinion of moral/immoral?