Surveilance

[alimentarius]

Since everything is privatized in a libertarian society, and people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property, doesn’t won’t this lead to a society in which we’re under constant surveilance?

[tsmereka]

Who would do the surveilling?

[alimentarius]

Property owners.

[socialdtk]

Individuals would have every right to protect themselves and their property from other persons. If a store owner feels it’s necessary to place a camera within his shop he has every right to do so. If you are against being under surveillance then refrain from doing business with him. If the benefit of having a camera outweighs the customers he loses because of it he will probably keep the camera. If not he will realize it was a bad investment and correct his mistake.

[ivanfoofoo]

It’s possible. It depends in what people prefer. If they prefer places without surveillance, they will go and choose that (for example, buying in stores that are on that place, or moving to that place, etc). I would not choose a gated community with surveillance, for instance. Instead, I don’t mind if I’m being recorded at the supermarket.

[ivanfoofoo]

One thing that’s important to remember: in the case it existed, it would be decentralized surveillance, not a single entity controlling everyone.

[DD5]

@alimentarius

Since everything is privatized in a libertarian society, and people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property, doesn’t won’t this lead to a society in which we’re under constant surveilance?

Surveillance in the free society is likely to be used to protect private property, contrary to now when surveillance is often used to invade it.

Can you think of why there would be an economic incentive to use it in any other way?

[DanielMuffinburg]

@alimentarius

Since everything is privatized in a libertarian society, and people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property, doesn’t won’t this lead to a society in which we’re under constant surveilance?

Only if people want to waste their money of surveilance equipment.

[socialdtk]

Surveillance equipment isn’t always a waste of money and at times it’s the only way in which a person can protect their property. If someone robs my home while I’m on vacation it would be helpful to know what that person looked like, what kind of car they drove,if they had any accomplices eta. All information that would make retrieving my stolen property much easier.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@socialdtk

Surveillance equipment isn’t always a waste of money and at times it’s the only way in which a person can protect their property. If someone robs my home while I’m on vacation it would be helpful to know what that person looked like, what kind of car they drove,if they had any accomplices eta. All information that would make retrieving my stolen property much easier.

Re-read the post I was responding to. He was implying that a level surveilance like of the city of London. I doubt everyone would 50 cameras on their half-acre property.

[Conza]

@Daniel

@socialdtk

Surveillance equipment isn’t always a waste of money and at times it’s the only way in which a person can protect their property. If someone robs my home while I’m on vacation it would be helpful to know what that person looked like, what kind of car they drove,if they had any accomplices eta. All information that would make retrieving my stolen property much easier.

Re-read the post I was responding to. He was implying that a level surveilance like of the city of London. I doubt everyone would 50 cameras on their half-acre property.

Precisely. And guess how effective they are?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm

1,000 cameras, solve one crime.

Lmao…