I agree with Rozeff when he writes above:
Nevertheless, I am astonished to read that Walter argued that the boy and girl had a “tacit agreement” that such photographing is out of order and not to be done without her permission. And this he says comes “From culture, from expectations, that are typical when a guy invites a girl to his abode.” These suppositions are outside the Blockian libertarian law that he expounds on other occasions. If there is aggression in taking a photograph, where is it? Do custom and expectations transform something that involves no physical violence against the girl into violent aggression? That’s an unacceptable leap from the strict libertarian postulate to which Walter typically adheres strictly. That opens the door to all sorts of subjective notions in a host of other possible situations. Walter has here virtually defined a privacy right without calling it by that name.
You get into all sorts of problems when you tie culture in with a libertarian society. What if the majority support some kind of cultural values you don't?
But I also find Rozeff's view incomplete when he writes:
I think we have to accept that the non-aggression principle combined with no physical aggression implies that the girl has no right of privacy and no right of action against the boy for secretly photographing her, and he is under no obligation or duty to tell her he’s going to do that.The Private Property Society solution would be broader. The boy could make clear that on his property he operates under Block's law or alternatively that he operates under Rozeff's law.
Thus, there would be no central planner to declare that Block's law is the only correct law or the only correct law is Rozeff's law.
FDurther, in this day and age, it would be very easy for a girl to discreetly check on, say, Block's smartphone app to see if the boy adhered to those rules or some other, Perhaps, the boy has subscribed to no identified laws for his property. Well then, she would know by going on to his property she would be stepping into the wild west----something she may or may not be willing to do.
I happen to believe that Block and Rozeff are two of the most important writers at LRC, but in this case, they hold differing views. I would personally rather live in an area where Block's rule is recognized on this point. But, I don't want to be a dictator here. Let everyone set their own rules for their own property that way you never get into a situation where you are out ruled based on a majority or some outside determination of culture etc..
If there were more Rozeff's in an area, private property would be overruled by his view which would open up all females to being filmed naked (even in the bathroom) on all property even if a large majority of us didn't want this to occur.
Leaving decisions at the step of the property owner with total respect for property owners to set the rules for their property eliminates the possibility of Block's rules or Rozeff's rules applying to us on our property even when we don't want them to simply because some outside belief has overruled private property rule.
And just like now, we would stay away from "bad" sections of town where rules don't exist or are far from our liking---but leaving yahoos to be yahoos because it also results in our ability to set sane property rules for our own property and those we want to associate with. If respect for private property is the bedrock of a society----upon which we can build whatever world we choose.
It is the ultimate anti-dictator society.