Over the years, libertarian philosophers have invested a lot
of thought into the practical functionality of a Voluntaryist Stateless
Society. Using the core tenents of Libertarianism, these thinkers have
postulated mechanisms that may arise out of the spontaneous order of the free
market. Systems of justice and peacekeeping, such as Dispute Resolution
Organizations, have been suggested. Also, a network of contracts and strong
adherence to private property rights is widely considered to be a major
mechanism by which a Voluntaryist society would organize.
In the spirit of hypothesizing on how different mechanisms
would arise, I began to wonder about the moral restrictions of spying,
surveillance and reconnaissance and how it would practically function. There
are great lengths of literature by many libertarian philosophers on invasion
defense forces and privatized police, but nothing specifically on this subject.
So, I decided to analyze it myself. I am by no means a so-called “professional”
libertarian philosopher and am giving these thoughts from an “average guy”
perspective. Also, if there have been such works by notable figures,
specifically on this subject, I will be more than happy to add citations from
their work into this article.
Within this article, I will attempt to frame the morality, as
it pertains to core tenents of Libertarianism, of spying, surveillance and
reconnaissance within an established Voluntaryist Stateless Society. I will
discuss the practical applications of those systems as utilized by citizens
within the society on each other and the application of those systems from
outside societal influences, stateless or otherwise.
The Voluntaryist Stateless Society in discussion will have an
assumed economic model of capitalism and will be referred to as “Ancapistan”. Furthermore,
I will use the terms “boundaries” and “borders” pragmatically as it pertains to
the topics of this discussion. I realize that the residents of Ancapistan would
only recognize where an individual’s property ends and another begins as any “boundary”
or “border” that truly exists.
Adherence to
the Non-Aggression Principle and Property Rights
The first and number one question that comes to mind when
speaking of spying, surveillance and reconnaissance is whether or not those
actions violate the Non-Aggression Principle. The NAP simply states that
aggression is immoral and that force is only acceptable in the defense of one’s
self and property. Is gathering intelligence an act of aggression? I would say in
most cases, no, especially when private property rights are being maintained
and there is no coercion involved. However,
I would argue that the deliberate defeat of a mechanism specifically in place
to protect privacy is not automatically an act of aggression, but could be a
violation of property rights after a deeper analysis, which would then be
considered a violation of the NAP.
For a clear cut example, let’s say I am your neighbor and I
am working in my yard. If you come to your window naked with the curtains
opened, the blinds up and I see you through the window, I did not violate the
NAP and I now know what you look like naked. However, if you did have your curtains
drawn, your blinds down and I then threw a brick through your window and drew
the blinds and curtains myself, that would obviously be an aggressive, albeit
not so subtle, act of spying.
Consider a not so clear cut case, the same neighbors have a
privacy fence separating their back yards and Mrs. Libertarian is sunbathing
topless. If the neighbor gets on his roof to do repairs and happens to see over
the fence at Mrs. Libertarian, I would not say that he violated the NAP. If the
neighbor got on a ladder with the expressed purpose of defeating the privacy
fence, looking over and seeing Mrs. Libertarian, that is a little more of a
grey area. However, would say he still did not violate the NAP. Mrs.
Libertarian’s fence was not damaged in the process and the neighbor did not
trespass, thus her private property rights have been maintained.
All in all, I believe it is the responsibility of the
individual, in clear adherence with self-ownership, to construct safeguards
that are not easily defeated. In the instance of Mrs. Libertarian sunbathing
topless, if she wants to have 100% complete privacy, maybe she should invest in
a tanning bed. In that case, the neighbor would almost certainly have to
violate private property to get a peek.
Questions such as these also inevitably lead to the digital
world as well. Cyber warfare is quickly becoming a mechanism to which states
sabre rattle and escalate conflicts with one another. Considering the broad
definition of “hacking”; is breaking into a computer system, for the sole
purpose of spying, surveillance and/or reconnaissance, a violation of the
NAP? Gaining access to a system,
especially while defeating deliberate mechanisms to thwart such infringements,
would be considered a form of trespassing, therefore violating the NAP. In
contrast, if a person has an unsecured Wi-Fi connection and someone gains
access to your systems, then I would not consider that a violation of the NAP.
A great discussion on this topic can be found on
ChristopherCantwell.com.
A poll was taken asking if hacking was a violation of the NAP and a discussion
ensued in the comment section. 67% believed it was, while another 21.5%
believed it was a violation only when money is stolen or data was damaged.
Ancapistan’s
Defense and the Crucial Role
Spying, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Would Play
Spying, surveillance and
reconnaissance would play an immensely crucial role in Ancapistan’s private
defense forces, especially if state actors still exist beyond its “borders”. Reconnaissance
and intelligence gathering on the activities of violent and coercive power
structures perched outside of the boundaries is what I would consider a
“no-brainer” when it comes to establishing Ancapistan. Before taking a deeper
analysis on the morality of specific instances, an issue must be addressed.
That issue is of “airspace”. Rothbard
states in Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution, that under common law, “every landowner owns all the airspace
above him upward indefinitely” but that “a literal application of the rule
would in effect outlaw all aviation, as well as rockets and satellites.” He
goes on to state “The best judicial theory is the “zone,” which asserts that
only the lower part of the airspace above one's land is owned; this zone is the
limit of the owner's “effective possession.””
Based off Rothbard’s
interpretation of “airspace”, I would find no moral conflict with any modern
applications of high altitude reconnaissance flights or satellite surveillance
systems over outside state actors’ territory. In fact, I would consider these
programs to be essential to the safety and security of Ancapistan. Surely, if
Ancapistan were established tomorrow and surrounded by outside state actors, it
would be threatened with the initiation of force. Knowing exactly what the
coercive power monopolies plan to do will provide the greatest defensive
preparation and highest chances of defending the lives and property of
Ancapistan’s residents.
Espionage is another tactic that
would most likely be utilized as well. Several moral questions are raised when
considering sending personnel into other territories outside Ancapistan. Is
sending someone to that territory considered trespassing? Also, does the NAP
apply to these outside state actors, as territorially monopolistic entity? To
answer those questions, one must establish whether private property exists
within that territory. If that answer is no, then the automatic answer to those
two questions is no as well. Residents of Ancapistan would not recognize the
use of coercion and force to organize society into a “state”; therefore I would
highly doubt Ancapistan’s residents would recognize crossing an imaginary line,
into what the state claims is its territory, would constitute any moral
violation, much less the NAP.
However, if the outside
territories were held privately, partially as a percentage of the territory or
not, I would say it is very important to be careful not violate those rights.
Ancapistan would be the example for the rest of the world. Just because these
privately held lands happen to reside within the boundaries of “the state”
does not mean Ancapistan could violate those private property rights. Spies should use the
“public” lands and infrastructure to achieve the objective, they should not use
privately held lands and infrastructure unless given consent.
Counterintelligence
Now that it has been argued that, in most cases, intelligence gathering techniques are moral, we must discuss
that fact that these same tactics would be used against the residents of Ancapistan
by outside state actors as well. However, as stated above, it is the
responsibility of the individual to safeguard against these measures. Just as
Mrs. Libertarian should use a tanning bed, instead of her back yard, if she
never wants to be seen sunbathing naked; the same logic must be applied
elsewhere.
In the specific case of high altitude
reconnaissance flights and satellite surveillance systems, countermeasures such
as signal jamming, signal encryption, cloaking and concealment must be utilized.
These measures would not damage property and would make it increasingly
difficult to gather the data sought after. The same goes for the digital world
with firewalls, code and data encryption and other software to thwart such
actions. With the creative and competitive nature of a truly free market,
Ancapistan’s resident would have access to protection technology far beyond
those developed by the outside world.
All in All, It’s
a Good Thing
Looking at spying, surveillance
and reconnaissance as a whole, I believe it should be a tool used often. If
Ancapistan were to be established tomorrow, litigation and dispute resolutions
would play a vital role in the society. A large part of that system would be intelligence,
gathered morally, to prove, disprove or resolve a dispute. For example, in the Russian Federation, dash cams have become a staple of society due to high rates
of insurance fraud. As a result, people have installed dash cams in their
cars and less and less fraud is being perpetrated. As an added bonus, the world
gets some very interesting YouTube videos in the process (car crashes, meteor
strikes and all the other wild things that happen in Russia)!
With this article, I want to
initiation a discussion, answer any existing questions, and/or raise new
questions about the practical and moral use of spying, surveillance and
reconnaissance in a Voluntaryist Stateless Society. Also, I hope that this
article will serve as a tool to counter and rebut arguments against Libertarian
philosophy when it comes to its pragmatism.
Follow me @SlavLibertarian
Follow me @SlavLibertarian