What about rights to privacy? You talked about someone who “used zoom lenses or helicopters to take your pictures”. I disagree (and so does U.S. law) that this is not a rights violation.

There is no such thing as right to privacy. There are only and only property rights.

Govts have a habit of making all sorts of imaginary rights as they deem fit. Like ‘Right to slaves’, ‘right to not have blood impured by the black race’. Just because its presented as a ‘right’ doesn’t mean, it is a justified right. There is no such thing as ‘right to privacy’. If someone enters your property without authorization, then that’s violation of your property rights not violation of their right to privacy.

If you really are worried about celebrities and paparazzis then it will be a Road owner’s responsibility to allow/disallow taking photographs on their property. Every property should be private property, so since there is no public property the owner of the property is the person to decide whether there will be some sort of privacy guaranteed or not.

IF I take your picture from my property, through a zoom lens then under libertarian law that’s not a violation of your property rights, I Am just on my own property.

As a result, if I do something embarrassing in private (let’s say, sleep with someone other than my wife), you may not have the right to blackmail me if you obtain your evidence in an invasive manner.

Actually the method of obtaining information could be illegitimate but the information itself is neither legitimate or illegitimate. That means even if I violated your property rights and went to your property I still have done no rights violation to publish it somewhere or to ask for money to keep silence.

ALTHOUGH in the above situation, since you are guilty of trespassing so I will make you pay the same amount of money you are asking me to pay to keep silence, so effectively for not pressing the charges I will have your silences in return.

Do you agree that people should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it should be illegal to intentionally circumvent that, or is it legal for me to intrude upon you in any way so long as I am not infringing on your physical property?

I don’t think people can have reasonable expectation of privacy in libertarian law. However by ‘my feelings’ you mean if I owned a house or a cinema hall can you expect a certain privacy on my property? And this is purely personal feelings, yes you can. I will provide you the same privacy on my property(provided you entered my property with permission, and you do not have a hot lesbian couple with you).

Libel: Again as long as its my property, and the action of printing letters on my property is not a violation of anybody’s rights then it doesn’t matter what I print on it, truth or lies, its all legitimate.
Libel laws only benefit the rich and harm the poor. In America libel laws are quite weak compared to libel laws in UK which is notoriously famous for it. Do you really think newspapers in UK are more honest about people than in US? The fact is in UK if you are an average or middle income guy then you are screwed if you have to fight a newspaper for libel.
Libel laws harm poor people because they can’t sue newspaper back, and people presume that because of libel laws all newspapers will print correct news.

Tell me something, how many times libel laws are invoked on the internet? Yet blogs and internet sites publish outrageous information about people. Nobody sues anybody so what is the end result:
If you read something on the internet and cite that as a source then it is a less reliable source, people don’t completely not believe what’s written at the same time they don’t completely believe the internet.
This is exactly how a society without libel laws will work.

Third, what about mental rights? Do I have the right to be protected against you intentionally causing me mental anguish? (Is stalking okay, for example?)

That’s ridiculous first of all there is no such thing as ‘mental rights’, secondly before you devise more rights understand the difference between positive rights and negative rights. Libertarianism only acknowledges negative rights.
Right to enjoy my newspaper on my property is a negative right, right to a newspaper on A property is a positive right.
Right to education, privacy, life, health are all positive rights.
Right to not be killed, not raped, not robbed are all negative rights.

Stalking is ok, and it will be dealt the same way if you went to a mall and a guy is stalking you following you behind, and you go and tell it to a mall cop. What does he do in that situation? The same thing goes here.

Most of the things you are talking about are caused by public property, and these are public property rights(as if the govt is acting the owner of that property).

I do notice one problem, however. What about rights to privacy? You talked about someone who “used zoom lenses or helicopters to take your pictures”. I disagree (and so does U.S. law) that this is not a rights violation.

In the U.S., individuals have rights against being spied upon in non-public places. It is illegal to use extraordinary means to intrude upon someone’s reasonable expectation of privacy; for example using a telescope to look into your neighbor’s window, or a laser on a window to listen to conversations inside a private residence. As a result, if I do something embarrassing in private (let’s say, sleep with someone other than my wife), you may not have the right to blackmail me if you obtain your evidence in an invasive manner. For example you could publish photos of the two of us entering a room, but you could not install a hidden camera to take pictures of us in bed. In such a situation I would still agree that the act of blackmail itself is not at issue, however if I know you obtained illegal pictures, I can refuse to pay, knowing that I will go after you if you publish them anyway. Indeed I can go after you immediately, since obtaining the pictures was illegal; if you publish them you just publish proof that you did something illegal (and maybe I can then further go after you for libel and/or compel whoever you give the pictures to to destroy them because they are illegal).

Now… I am curious about three things:

First, what are your feelings on privacy? Do you agree that people should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it should be illegal to intentionally circumvent that, or is it legal for me to intrude upon you in any way so long as I am not infringing on your physical property?

Second, what about libel? Should it be a civil infraction to publish defamatory information if it is wrong, especially if done with malicious intent? Or am I allowed to make wild accusations about you with no restriction?

Third, what about mental rights? Do I have the right to be protected against you intentionally causing me mental anguish? (Is stalking okay, for example?)

The result of the David Letterman case is exactly what society wanted: The secret relationship revealed, not concealed. Had blackmail be legal, Letterman’s secret would have been kept.

Similarly when someone commits a real crime, like murder, the society does not want the murderer gets away by paying the blackmailer.

In terms of encouraging people to spy on bad guys, there is always incentive to inform the government to get cash reward.

So the whole point is to spoil the pay-off game, except when one of the player is the government in such cases as informer or plea bargain.

You left out another category: Those that have done *NOTHING* and yet have a socially frowned upon condition: a stigmatized medical condition, a third nipple, a XY woman who had a small penis removed at birth, etc.

If the blackmail is legal, then MORE people will do blackmailing, that is more people will try to catch wrong people doing wrong things, and more people will give the person whose secret they hold a chance. Also if its legal then the contracts will be upheld. The ‘bad’ things people might not want the world know come in two categories, first is immoral but legitimate activities(like cheating, sexual perversion, etc etc) second is illegitimate and wrong activities(like rape, murder, theft, embezzlement etc).
In the first set of activities the blackmailed individual actually benefit, he has a contract he can enforce, he can negotiate on the price, he can keep a secret safe by paying a small price.(nobody is going to ask you for a million dollar if your total worth is a million dollar for cheating on your wife). Just like recently David Letterman got that guy arrested who had not committed any crime had he just went public with his information and written book about it. Govt doesn’t care whether Letterman sleeps with his co-producers, Govt doesn’t care whether that guy went public with it, but govt cares when that guy makes an offer to Letterman to keep his mouth shut. That just sounds inconsistent. With a legal blackmail(or whitemail), Letterman can pay that guy some money and have his silence with a major assurity. If guy violates contract then Letterman would get millions out of him for breaking a contract.
Similarly when someone commits a real crime, like murder, when someone blackmails him, he is forced to pay a huge sum of money to keep that individual’s mouth shut, this gives an incentive to people to start harassing criminals(which is a good thing). The criminal is made to pay huge money for his crime.
Your argument that illegal blackmailing is more beneficial is actually quite weak.

Now let’s take a look at blackmail. If it is illegal, chances are no deal will be made, or a deal made will be broken later, thus causing loss to both parties. In the end, the bad thing will be exposed and the revealing part won’t benefit either. By creating a lose-lose market for doing bad things and for revealing bad things, the hope is that people won’t do bad things and won’t value such information.

the question is using someone elses reputation for your commercial advertizing purpose.

Can you use any models/actress/actors/players picture without any endorsement for branding advertising your product?

No, it won’t be legal because it would be using/applying someone without his consent.

same is case here. its simply wrong.

if court don’t have any such law till now, it will make it then.

and there is no question of blackmail or reputation.

question of using someone without his/her consent.

its violation of freedom violation of individual liberty and is wrong.

the idea you gave about someone taking a girls pictures and threatening her to use them for commercial purpose, In a free society, if someone even uses a girls picture for any commercial means (including pornography) without her consent and prior information, she will demand proper charges as a model or actress for that photo/video etc. and she should get it.

That would be demanding a posteriori agreement, I hardly think any court would accept it like that.
Although she could demand compensation, but then she will have to show damages. And truth is, there are no damages here. If there are no damages here, there cannot be a compensation for the damages.
The point is simple, you don’t own information in someone else’s mind or on his property. Property rights cannot be extended in other people’s heads because that would be a violation of their property rights. If the mere act of taking your pictures results you physically diminished then there is a theft here, but that does not happens.

Also you cannot claim that your reputation was ruined, we cannot extend property rights in terms of reputation, that would have disastrous consequences. Reputation is something in the minds of the people, you cannot own what’s in the minds of the people because their body is their property.

So what if people have started to think that you are a whore, if you are allowed to seek damages on the grounds that your reputation was ruined, tomorrow I might sue a whorehouse on the grounds that because they came in my neighborhood the property value of my land has dropped.

Not only that, if you are a television manufacturer, and sell each TV for $100, and I come in the market and launch my own television which is better and cheaper, this causes the market price of your TV to drop significantly, then you might sue me for causing damages to your reputation. How would you stop it if seeking damages on the grounds of reputation damages is allowed.

i know that blackmailer wont be liable of any law breaking in a n ideal society…but..in that case many people may consider this as a job…career…seriously…blackmailing..??

Yeah you are right, but you see there are two types of people blackmailed: 1) Actual criminals: Murderers, Rapists, thieves, embezzlers etc 2) Innocent people involved in activities against the morals of the society: Homosexuals, Sado-masochists, sexual perverts, adulterers etc The first group has actually committed a crime, and blackmailers make their crime pay less. Blackmail also acts as a deterrent, adds to the risk of the crime. How many of the anonymous tips received by the police can be traced back to a failed blackmail? How many criminals try to commit a crime on their own, fearing blackmail from their fellow criminal(crime committed alone has less chances of succeeding or being on a larger scale). Today the biggest fear in the minds of people is that even after they pay the blackmailer, he might still out them, or keep on asking for more money even when he said last time that there won’t be any more demands. Well if the blackmail is legalized, then you can actually negotiate with the blackmailer, ask him to be in contracts and if he violates them, you can sue him for large sums of money. This would act as even bigger of a deterrent on the actual crime. Professional Blackmailers also increase the penalty of the crime and the certainty of being caught. They are as much of a deterrent as policemen and vigilant citizens. Second group hasn’t committed an aggression, but its the society’s conscience which is forcing them pay the money. Also blackmailing has liberating effect on individuals, and society as in whole. Take for example those acts which are not aggression but are technically crime in India, Homosexuality. Individual members who are blackmailed cannot be considered to be benefited a lot, but overall blackmail helps the whole group into more acceptance in the society. Forcefully outing homosexuals may not be a service, but overall it increases the overall acceptance in the society. Adultery is not illegal(though illegal in India but soon going to be legal as it does no involves aggression), but still blackmailing deters individuals into not cheat on their spouse.If someone has pictures of you going to a hotel room with another woman, either you are never going to cheat for the rest of your life, or going to get out of this marriage you don’t want at the first place. And at the end, blackmailers are warriors with swords of truth in their hand, nobody uses truth more efficiently as blackmailers, how can you call a guy who threatens to speak truth a criminal?

in all the other things u reasoned for earlier….both the consumer n the trader were happy n better off after the trade…but i dont think the consumer will be to much happy here in blackmailing..

Why not? The consumer’s secret is not revealed. See the problem with most of the kitten butchering arguments is, that people don’t realize that even today slaughtering kittens and making clothes out of them IS NOT ILLEGAL! If I have nude pictures of your sister, which I got them through public means(say she was standing nude on the public property, or she let me take those pictures for some reasons, maybe because we were dating back then) today I cannot be arrested if I just go out and publish them on a porn site. Yes its true I cannot be punished if I merely publish them online, or make money out of them. I have checked American laws. In India, I donno the law that well, butI know that if the pics qualify for publishing then there is no crime. Similarly, if I know you killed someone, or have pictures of you committing a crime, today in American and Indian law I can go out, and publish that piece of information without committing a crime. I know you find it appalling, but that’s because you are not looking at things objectively. BUT, the crime is, ONLY when I demand money from you for not printing it. Isn’t it much better if I don’t print the pictures for a certain amount of money from you? You are claiming that you are not better off with this blackmail deal? Well the other option is, I never ask you for money, but directly go and print the pics in paper and websites, would you rather have that? Are you better off printing those pics on net, or not printing those pictures? Of course you are best off with not printing those pictures and NOT paying any money, but that’s not the option. You must understand, if I have some secret on you, I won’t be committing a crime if I never ask you money and directly open your secret to everyone.

in all the other things u reasoned for earlier….both the consumer n the trader were happy n better off after the trade…but i dont think the consumer will be to much happy here in blackmailing..

what if the milkman takes compromising pics of the baker’s wife n blackmails him to give bread….the milkman will be happy..but not the baker…cos he wont be getting any milk in return..but jus the photographs which he gonna destroy…

and..

“On the other hand, a blackmail is done for your OWN property. The information could be about you. But you cannot claim the information to be yours. The blackmailer could be making profit with that information, in case if you choose not to pay his silence, and even that would be totally justified because its nothing you own that he is selling.”

.the buyer buys the photograph or CD not because its jus a photograph(which the trader owns) but for the content in it…(which belongs to the person being blackmailed)…

i know that blackmailer wont be liable of any law breaking in a n ideal society…but..in that case  many people may consider this as a job…career…seriously…blackmailing..??

i dunno whether i have expressed clearly in words about whats in my mind…but….jus an opinion..

And by the way, the idea you gave about someone taking a girls pictures and threatening her to use them for commercial purpose, In a free society, if someone even uses a girls picture for any commercial means (including pornography)  without her consent and prior information, she will demand proper charges as a model or actress for that photo/video etc. and she should get it.
its nothing but breakage of Freedom. A try to enslave free-individul under savage system.