Autolykos, your questions are of very philosophical nature, and I don’t see much benefit in philosophical musings. By the way I also asked a question which you failed to answer. What is the practical disadvantage of not prohibiting spying and stalking for fun?
You should go back and refine your definition of what a crime actually is, because the weights you place on “what has the most utilitarian outcome” are garbage for defining what a crime should and should not be.
Also, you were trying to say the difference between rape and a punch in the face was the emotional damage (which I believe is wrong), but even if we do agree on this, it still does not follow that emotional damage alone is a crime.
It can be a rule on private property if you so choose. But you continually say that you should be able to sue the guy for “emotional damages”, but he is not on your property, using your property, or doing anything else to effect your property in any negative way. Thus, you are saying you can sue him for “emotional damages”, but emotional damages on their own are NOT a crime.
Then you don’t actually see much benefit in this topic, because it’s ultimately philosophical in nature.
In my opinion? The formation of a state.
-
Why must a state be formed to keep laws against spying? You don’t need a state for that just as you don’t need a state to sue against physical aggression. So I ask again, what is the practical disadvantage of not looking at spying for fun as an act of aggression?
-
Texas, you are again defining crime in terms of property without trying first to explain why it must be so. I don’t even want to have a single rule for criminal behavior. I have no significant problem in creating very specific laws for very specific circumstances without trying to justify them philosophically. In the an-cap society these would not be laws but merely justification to use retaliatory force. The point is the same though. In general, If some things make sense (such as demanding restitution in case of noising into private affairs) but are inconsistent with some definition of what is crime, then the definition is wrong.
3.Regarding your reservation. Physical aggression will be illegal regardless of the property on which it occured. You can’t just shoot every treepasser.
- If someone makes noise at night and disturbs your sleep, you can sue, right? How is that different from spying? In both cases you are not physically harmed but only harmed emotionally.
Only a state has the authority to make laws.
Prove it is aggression.
The burden of proof is on you to show how a crime can be outside property.
It’s still a philosophy of law. You’re making arbitrary rules, you have to substantiate the basis for them or their authority. The burden of proof is on you.
Under a state? How would that work without a state?
What would you sue them for? What harm have they done?
You hurt my feelings with these posts. I am going to sue you for $10,000. I should win right? You hurt me emotionally?
Act of aggression against WHAT? No property is being aggressed against, you cannot own emotions, emotions are not property, you cannot sue someone just because they hurt your feelings (see divorce, cheating, calling your mom fat, calling you fat). What you can do though is kick them off your property and perhaps convince others to do so as well.
I agree with what libertystudent commented, and you will run into all of the problems of Utilitarianism. I would recommend going to read up on that, but alas, it is just “philosophical musings.”
You would not be justified in doing so, there is no crime being commited by the “pervert spy”. I cannot go much further into what justification is, it might lead to paragraphs of “philsophical musings.”
Or the definition of crime is correct, and your “law” is wrong.
Well everyone owns at least one piece of property, their bodies. And answering this question might lead us into all of these “philsophical musings” on what amount of force is justified to repel an aggressor, but I do not see how it applies to the “pervert spy.”
I would also recommend adding Hoppe to your reading list.
-
What do you suggest me to read by Hoppe? Is there an online link for that?
-
How is excessive noise different? Excessive noise does not harm property yet it is considered aggression by most libertarians.
Can you substantiate this claim?
From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/air-pollution.html (Murray Rothbard)
Rothbard is not equal to most libertarians, Want to revise your claim, or are you just appealing to Rothbard as an authority?
Would you think it is ok then for my neighbour to play incredibly loud music and constantly have parties night afternight and keep everyone awake? What I mean is, would I not be able to make some sort of appeal in a Libertarian society? And as for privacy, again would I not be able to make some sort of appeal if I thought my neighbour was using binoculars to spy on me every night?
There is no relevant equivalence between pollution and observation that I can see.
Loud music is not pollution, it just disturbance, much like spying. What do you suggest you should do if the neighbor is constantly spying on you? Spy on him back? That’s not reasonable. There has to be a solution, and whether it is consistent with some rule or not doesn’t matter. Without a practical solution a society that can’t deal with this problem is not viable.
why is loud music not pollution? when a jet flies over a head or a train rattles by does it never shake walls? at lower levels when a neighbours emitted vibrations worry your ears whilst you try to sleep (you hear by being shaken) it is certainly up for debate as to whether he commits a tort against you.
also I hope ou’ve considered the fact that you do not see objects by shooting rays out of your eyes quite like the greeks thought…
The solution to being ‘spied on’ is to erect barriers of some sort, and whatever else you can muster in a voluntary manner,.
That explains, now, why I went through all that confusion reading about how Socrates thought colour was perceived!
So are you supposed to buy special barriers to avoid that? How much do you think you could sell your 5 million dollar house if the neighbor and all his buddies constantly stare at your backyard? Sometimes they might even use helicopters far above and film you. After that they publish all this on the internet. So you can’t sell your house because no one would buy a house with such neighbors, you’ve already lost 5 million. You can only hope to move out, even though the film about your intimate life is already on the web constantly humiliating you. I’m sorry but this is not a viable solution.
Buy some tin foil and hope for best.
What I think is irrelevant. My values are not facts. The questions to ask are, if someone “disturbs the peace” is that a crime, and if so what is the crime, and what sort of restitutive measures are reasonable given we have established a tort of some sort?
What would the appeal be? Who would you appeal to? What would their authority be?
These are all rhetorical. I’m asking you to think about your concerns from another angle.
So you want to control how he can use his binoculars and where he can look? Do you have a right to control his property and body? If so, from where did you derive it?
And as above, who would you appeal to, and so on …
The reasons why libertarians support the idea of private property is that it allows disputes/conflicts to be settled in a fairly clear manner. So if you feel you have been done wrong by, you will have to define the crime or injury a little more substantively than “it makes me feel bad”, because I am sure that both you and Eugene can appreciate how the entire situation devolves when we embrace a stystem of torts based on subjective emotional valuations.
You buy clothes, don’t you?
If you can find a voyeur with the means to buy it, lots. An important rule of marketing, problems are features. It’s all in the spin.
This is a failure to understand how prices are formed. Value is subjective Eugene, when you buy a house for $5 million, it is worth NOTHING if there are no buyers, and there is no guarantee it is worth $5 million if you try to sell it and there are buyers. Value is not fixed.
This is funny considering you live in a police state. I can’t tell if you are serious in this discussion or not. If you don’t want to be filmed, don’t go outside. If you think you have a right that no one should look at you, explain where you got this right, because it creates an obligation on others to look away from you at all times. And likewise they can expect you to look away from them at all times.
You’re basically asking for a society where there is zero individual responsibility and everyone walks around with their head down. Brilliant!
Here is a start:
Yes, the house can be sold with “will never be robbed, neighbors are constantly are watching your house.” hahaha
There are multiple things:
-
Do nothing
-
Buy his property
-
If it bothers you so much, take defensive measures (barriers, farraday cages, do naughty things away from the reach of this neighbor’s tool (don’t tell me this theoretical object will have infinite range and be able to spy on you no matter where you are in the world), etc)
-
Confront him and try to negotiate a contract which says he will not spy on you
-
Move to a neighborhood which has the “no pervert spying” rule in place.
Of course it matters, as libertystudent stated, where does this “no pervert spying” rule get the authority? You can’t just force your neighbor to wear the silly hat because you believe the world would be better off if everyone wore the hat.
I just stated a few “practical solutions” which are in perfect alignment with Property Rights. All of those do not violate anyone’s Property Rights, and takes care of the problem.