Libertarians naturally oppose the initiation of force but what would a libertarian society do about non-forceful invasions of privacy? E.g. websites and supermarkets collecting information on browsing and buying habits or some weirdo staring through your bedroom window? Would there be a “right to privacy” or would this be seen as perhaps too potentially restrictive of, for example, press freedom? Private individuals and institutions nosing into my affairs is just as disturbing to me as the government doing the same.
Privacy rights are property rights. The weirdo staring through your window can be expelled from the community. On the other hand, businesses collecting personal information use this information to study market demand, and thus offer you lower prices in exchange for that information.
For the firm to do that, you’d have to allow it to use the information in such a way. If the firm warned you beforehand that it would use the information this way, yet you proceeded to do business with it anyway, then all I can say is caveat emptor…
I am not sure there could be any protections of the governmental type. On the other hand, you would be obligated to use nothing that tracked you. Using cash for purchases, or even anonymous electronic money stores (akin to disposable cameras or gift certificates) would make it very difficult. As for the wierdo looking in your window, if they have to go on your lawn to look in, they’re tresspassing. Fairly simple. If they can look in from the street, I suggest you get some curtains. You have a right to take steps for your own privacy, but no right to determine how others use their senses.
Some of these questions, though, can’t be so easily shrugged off. For instance, many descriptions of anarcho-capitalism talk about insurance companies providing protection - and are based on the assumption, explicitly stated, that you will not be able to engage in social or commercial interactions without taking out the policies discussed. Is this really the world we’re interested in? I, for one, would rather live in a world where a handshake can be safely relied on, not one where I can only do business with you because I know that your insurance company will reimburse me for damages you do. Then there’s the descriptions offered of the private defense agencies that don’t sound like they particularly would respect privacy or individual choices. These are questions that need to be addressed, I’d say.
I’m not sure if you’d be obliged to have such insurance: if it were mandatory, that would rather defeat the idea of anarcho-capitalism. Instead, people would insure themselves and their property because it makes sense, much in the way we seek health insurance, homeowners insurance, and so forth.
As for the contracted-protective services, would that situation be any different than what we endure with the police? An old associate of mine was a lawyer at least three Fourth Amendment violation cases that I’m aware of. There is always the possibility of abuse. But the difference is, in theory, that the local police can often abuse our rights with near impunity - the courts use what I would call coercion to force people into plea bargains wherein they waive the ability to sue for a violation of civil liberties. The cops involved in the three cases my associate has tried are still employed with the same police departments.
Now with an anarcho-capitalist system, profit motivated as it is, such violations are really bad for business. You don’t want to look like Blackwater. Yet unlike Blackwater, you can’t opt out of your present police department after repeated violations and choose another. You are stuck. With anarcho-capitalism, competition, public image, and profit motive should limit abuses of power.
Or it could just all fall to pieces and you’d have small feudal states controlled by militias. Still, I’d be willing to take the chance.
You sure do fall back on that one a lot.
Convenience ensures that people would simply buy curtains.
It’s the common response to the problem.
It should be no surprise that land, being communally owned by government decree everywhere in the western world, should cause a range of problems that appear in debates with frequent occurence.
There is a distinct difference between a supermarket using the information in their database to ‘fine tune’ their business and someone staring through your window.
It’s not hard to imagine it wouldn’t be much different than today, if you actually care then it is kind of hard for them to get any useful information out of your buying habits. Most websites and businesses have a stated privacy policy which goes above and beyond what is required of them by law, no reason to believe this model wouldn’t work in the absence of law.
And there’s always the old ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide’ argument…
How ? Are you saying that the almost non-material act of looking will be dealt using physical force ? So, Peter looks through a window and in retaliation he is kidnapped ? Is his house confiscated as well ? Come on.
I expect that any shopping mall security guard would be able to handle the situation with professionalism.
Are you saying that the non-crime of looking at something will be dealt by the crime of assault at the hands of a ‘private’ thug ?
On a private road or in a community bound by restrictive covenants? Sure. An agent of the road owner’s (or community’s, if they don’t overlap) could question people engaging in suspicious activities, especially ones forbidden on the property involved. Where does assault fit into the picture though?
Are you saying that these agents will behave just like police thugs ? What does ‘people engaging in suspicious activities’ mean ? Are you saying that these agents would judge on the spot whether a ‘violation’ of a contract has taken place or not ?
Someone standing on the street and peering into someone else’s window would count, I would think, as suspicious activity in a homeowner’s association or gated community that has restrictions on such activities. Moreover, nothing I said should be read as suggesting they’d be brutal thugs; quite the opposite. I’ve lived in gated communities. It’s not like they come and beat you up for trespassing on someone’s lawn… private firms are much more subtle.
Fine, but I don’t think this is very realistic. What about children ? Should they also sign a contract ?
Of course I’m not arguing against a completly private society, but some of the things some people here seem to take for granted don’t sound very plausible to me.
There must be some sort of correlation between infringements of contracts and sanctions. I can’t imagine a voluntary society where people are banished because of looking at something/somebody.
Well obviously not; but if someone made a habit of it, things would change…
What need, in the case of a peeping tom, is there for force? I have not heard of a peeping tom who violently opposed the police just to look into someone’s bedroom. When the police show up, the peeping tom bolts. It’s simply not worth the trouble, especially if he is trespassing. In fact, voyeurs tend to have power and self perception issues, which don’t facilitate combative behavior. Now, if the police/security rolled up and used unnecessary force, I imagine he could have a claim against them – and therein lies the solution.
Agreed–usually you just scare the Peeping Tom away. There’s no need to go to extra efforts unless some other factor is present. A Peeping Tom brandishing a knife or gun would, I think, classify as ‘suspicious’, as would the Peeping Tom who makes a habit of peeking in every day. Or the Peeping Tom who is really a burglar casing the place and waiting for a good time to break in.
I got a question- what happens if an individual is trying to build a type of bomb, or some other device that could kill a large amount of people? Can PDAs use the act of an individual building a bomb as justification to use violence against the bomb maker? If they can, then would PDAs be allowed to build bombs? Does it matter if the individual has a history of violence or is mentally unstable?