Mark S. emails:
Don't Property Rights begin with "I own me."? Does the person in the shower abdicate their bodily property rights when they shower? If one has a level of modesty that says, "I don't show all my body parts to just anyone" do they automatically surrender their position on their property the moment they disrobe to some level, particularly behind closed doors? If the person in the shower leaves the bathroom door wide open perhaps they do lose some rights to their standards of modesty. However, the point made initially was that the photography was surreptitious and not made readily accessible to anyone passing by. Just as a person that leaves their drapes open at night in a well lit room shouldn’t expect other to not view their activities, the converse is also true. That is, if one makes an effort to not be easily viewed, closing the bathroom door in this case, they are taking steps to protect their property rights and to make secret attempts to circumvent those measures is an act of duplicity or fraud. Which, I believe, does violate the NAP in spirit if not in fact.First off, as I have made clear before, as Henry Hazlitt did, I reject the idea of natural rights. Thus, I hold that the fact that I may "own myself" does not deduce into the obligation that everyone else must leave me alone (though I wish they would).
If one accepts the idea that it's fine to take pictures without someone's knowledge in the use of a shower, what about using the toilet? Is that also fair game? If not, why not?
It is really going to take my future book to make the entire case but I don't believe there is such a thing as natural rights and I do not believe self-ownership is at the fundamental core of a free society
As I have indicated before, I do not believe that every individual on the planet has to agree on every possibility of law before there can be peace and harmony.
A recognition of private property would be enough: You leave me alone on my property and I will leave you alone on yours.
If a person does not want to be photographed naked while taking a shower, she should
just stay away from properties that do not offer this protection.
As I have previously stated, I believe general "wise men" rules would be adopted by most. If, say, Walter Block, who I consider a wise man, sets down rules for a decent individual to live by (and he is against photographing people in the shower who don't want to be photographed) then I imagine he would get a lot of followers who would indicate the rules on their property are "those designed by Walter Block."
On the other hand, if there are those who are more free spirits, then maybe on their property they would subscribe to the "Hugh Hefner rules," which would allow naked photography of women in showers.
In general, people would do what they do now, stay away from "bad areas,"that is, areas where the rules (if any) do not match up to a person's own moral compass,
There would be no "libertarian dictators" who outline laws for all properties.
A simple respect for private property seems to solve a lot of problems, Otherwise, dictatorial libertarians are adopting the methods of the central planners and seeking to gain control, based on natural rights or whatever to institute beliefs on everyone (even when there are conflicts amongst us. See; Rozeff vs. Block) and as Hayek has taught, this means the worst get on top.
I say let's eliminate "the top," libertarian or otherwise.
A basic general agreement of "You do whatever the hell you want on your property and leave me to do what I want on my property," would come a long way toward eliminating wars and political conflicts (since there wouldn't be any politics).
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert and is author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics, on LinkedIn and Facebook. The Robert Wenzel podcast is on iphone and stitcher.