-
The point is that ubiquitous spying technology will lead to everyone spying on everyone. Just point the spy gadgets at your neighbors’ houses and stream the live feed to the internet. If anyone wants to watch, they can. I don’t think you realize what a “game-changer” that would be for civil society.
-
So what if it’s “not as easy”? Many things aren’t as “easy” for some people to do if they’re not backed by a state. I see no reason why stalkers can’t be prosecuted for trespassing in today’s society - do you? While you may be “sure” and “pretty convinced” that most “sane” people would beat up a stalker, since you won’t provide reasoning or evidence to back up that claim, I’m going to have to dismiss it. Sorry.
-
The thing is, I don’t know what you mean by “practical”. I also don’t know what you mean by “pervert”. My point is that semantics are at the very heart of this issue, just like they’re at the very heart of every other issue. If two people can’t agree on meanings for important words, then they won’t be communicating with one another. They’ll just be talking past each other.
There is a clear advantage in prohibiting alcohol. It will significantly reduce the number of people who use alcohol. The is a clear advantage in making pot illegal. It will significantly reduce the number of people who use pot.
Technically, Mikachusetts, declaring something illegal won’t per se significantly reduce the number of people who do it. But then again, most people use phrases like “prohibiting” and “making illegal” to really mean “threatening to hurt people if they do it”.
Autolykos,
I was being sarcastic. Prohibiting acts via legislation does not reduce their occurence. It drives the acts underground and makes them dangerous. That was my point with drugs and alcohol.
I agree, and just because this is the stated intention of the law, does not mean that will be the actual outcome. This is why Law should be limited towards reimbursing you when Property Rights are broken (crimes), and NOT trying to preemptively ban non-crimes, or things which are looked down upon, but do not break any Property Rights (vices).
Good points, both of you. I would say, however, that the threat of punishment for engaging in activity X may well lead some people to refrain from it. It depends on how severe the punishment and (more importantly) how regular the enforcement would be.
Tex2002ans, keep in mind that pre-emptive banning results from an otherwise inefficient legal system. When there are too few courts, police, etc. for whatever reason (such as being monopolized by a single organization), the trend seems to be in favor of increasingly harsh punishments for those who are caught. The idea is to “make an example” of someone who happens to get caught in order to hopefully intimidate others into obedience. I think this approach has been used initially for what we’d call “real crimes”. Once the genie has been let out of the proverbial bottle, control freaks try to extend it to things that they don’t like.
I just didn’t bring that up because it was already brought up in Eugene’s previous thread here:
So I am supposed to buy expensive spying equipment and attempt to spy on the pervert neighbor only discovering that he doesn’t even care? When you can’t touch property you are very restricted in your retaliation especially when you deal with psychopaths who couldn’t care less about any punishment that is not physical.
That’s what you believe. I don’t necessarily accept that, and it doesn’t matter whether Walter Block or other libertarians think that. As we all know the majority is not always right even if its a majority of libertarians. By the way I did read “Defending the undefendable” and the Block article you linked to.
I could of course claim that some private information should be called property but then you will all tell me that information can’t be property because it is not scarce. So I don’t think I can convince you by using the very specific and limiting rules you set for me.
Yet an-cap arbitrators will have to make such informed guesses. For example if I planned to murder my wife because she cheated on me, then a court will decide that she has the right to retributive damage. However if I fell from the second floor and accidentally smashed an old lady then the court will only require monetary compensation. As you see intent is important and has to be judged by outsiders for many reasons even in a libertarian society. So if my intent is to spy on you because I suspect you are a thief, then the court will not punish me for it, but if I spy on you in order to put the video on the internet the court will decide that my intent was not to catch an aggressor but simply to enjoy myself. That would be illegal.
First of all consumption of pot and alcohol are not acts of aggression. You can’t aggress against yourself, that would be a contradiction. Second of all even though there might be some advantage to such law, there is a clear disadvantage as well, and that is that people who want to use pot and alcohol will not be able to. However I see a lot of advantages in prohibiting spying and stalking for fun, and no disadvantages whatsoever (except maybe that it complicates the law). Just as most libertarians don’t want to see physical aggression, most libertarians could also agree to prohibit some sorts of non physical aggression. Just as there is a huge advantage in making physical aggression illegal, there can be also an advantage in making some non physical aggression illegal.
Perhaps you should read up on the Nirvana Fallacy as well. Nobody is saying Anarcho-capitalism and a system of completely decentralized law would fix every single problem to your satisfaction. How does the state currently handle “psychopaths who couldn’t care less about any punishment that is not physical”?
What, is your definition of a crime?
But how does property arise? How do you come to own something?
Property is ownable because it is scarce. Ideas are not scarce, thus they cannot be owned.
… on your own property. The spy is not damaging, degrading, or effecting your property in any way, there is no crime.
A person can be harmed emotionally. The brain is part of the body, which is a property, so it suits your definition of crime (not that it is very important for me to match this definition). Of course not every emotional damage should be considered a crime, but a significant emotional damage can be. For example it is quite obvious that we do not punish for the mere physical damage of a rape (which in most cases is minimal), but for the emotional damage. What if a person could cause such emotional damage without even touching the woman, say with some gadget or just with a given sequence of words? Should we not punish him just because there was no physical proximity?
Why should we not consider spying for no good reason as such act that is considered extremely damaging emotionally? Naturally we can’t judge the exact emotional damage, so we go with the default just as we do with rapes.
It seems that you’re sneaking an extra premise into this thread, namely that the hypothetical spying equipment is now “expensive”. Why are you sneaking in this extra premise?
I don’t see how one would necessarily be literally unable to “touch property” in a stateless, free-market society. There may be plenty of people who are willing to physically retaliate against stalkers (real or perceived) - but those people will be held liable for the resulting medical bills should the stalkers choose to prosecute.
Since you didn’t respond to my other two points, I take it that you have no (major) objections to them?
Who’s to say whether consumption of all or specific drugs constitutes “aggression”?
Who’s to say that, just because you see “clear advantages” and/or “clear disadvantages” in doing something or prohibiting something, everyone else must agree? Furthermore, who’s to say that everyone must support/reject something based on its (perceived) advantages/disadvantages?
Just what definition of “aggression” are you using here? Can you explain how some “aggression” can be non-physical in your opinion?
Yes, but there is nothing illegal about this.
Rape is the physical invasion of someone else’s property (their body) without their consent. This is a crime. Just looking at you, looking at you from across the street, taking a picture of you, recording a video of you, while standing on my own property, using my own camera, or magical spying machine, is not a crime. Now once I step onto your property and begin doing these things, I would be trespassing. Trespassing is a crime, taking pictures/video of you is not a crime.
No, he should not be punished if he is on his own property or on the property of someone who is indifferent towards spying/stalking.
You are free to ban this on your property, but it would not be possible to ban it on his property, or on anyone’s property who is indifferent. Let me stress this again, you are free to ban this on your property.
I point you to my answer up there on the rape case.
Who’s to say that just because you see clear advantage in prohibiting physical aggression everyone else must agree?
So is a punch in the face. Yet we do not punish a punch in the face as severely as rape. Why not? Because the emotional damage is considered to be more severe in case of rape. You don’t have to make a person bleed to damage him, you can make him cry as well, this is also damaging.
If a new linguistic discovery enables a person to utter a magical sequence of words that can cause the target the same humiliation as felt by the victim of rape, then surely we will consider this illegal. It fits every definition of aggression. It is invasive (words are sounds which are physical objects), it is done without consent, etc…
No one. Of course, I haven’t argued, even implicitly, that everyone must agree with me there.
Can you answer my questions directly now?
I just don’t understand the point you are making. You don’t have to agree with me that spying and stalking for fun should be illegal. You are free to go to a court that doesn’t recognize it. I am however trying to convince you that it should be illegal. The more values we share the easier will be the potential relations between us in an an-cap society.
I guess my point is twofold:
-
With all due respect, I don’t think you’re doing a good job of convincing me (or anyone else) that “spying and stalking for fun” should be “illegal”. I say this because I remain entirely unconvinced.
-
You seemed to be attempting a stronger argument than simply convincing me that I should support the “prohibition” of “spying and stalking for fun”. Instead, you seemed to be arguing that libertarians (if not all people) must agree with you on this - or else. So I was simply giving the classic response of “Or else what?”
- Then please reply to my previous post about the linguistic discovery.
- No I definitely didn’t argue for anything stronger.
I think it is time for you to start reading some more Murray Rothbard and Walter Block then. hahaha
FYI, you still haven’t answered my questions directly.
Regarding your post about the “linguistic discovery”, I fail to see how humiliation necessarily constitutes harm. Are you saying that a person is entitled to a positive or at least neutral emotional state at all times? If that’s the case, then (for example) why shouldn’t a person be able to sue his spouse for “emotional damages” if she suddenly decides to divorce him?