I reproduce below some of the emails I have received, with my responses in blue.
ESOSA VICTOR Osai emails:
your ignorance and hypocrisy
"Martin failed to act in a libertarian fashion. By failing to take the libertarian options available to him, he is now dead. If he had followed libertarian principle, he would be alive today. As Block makes clear, from a libertarian perspective, “there is no right to privacy; none at all.” Thus, Martin had no right, from a libertarian perspective, to physically assault Zimmerman. As I said, he could have asked Zimmerman to stop following him, but, again from a libertarian perspective, he could not go beyond a request. Once he smacked Zimmerman or even threatened Zimmerman with bodily harm, Zimmerman had the right, from a libertarian perspective, to defend himself."
In order to believe the "conservative" version of the story and the "verdict", you have to believe this:
The "non-aggressor" was warned by the authorities NOT to chase the "aggressor."
That's a non-sense statement. Of course in real life, the aggressor was the one doing the persecuting or pursuing. If chasing someone who did nothing to you is not an act of aggression, I don't know what is.
If you believe that Zimmerman - who was warned by authorities not to chase Trayvon but did it anyway - was not the aggressor, you are violating and hardening your own conscience. You are imagining and assuming that Zimmerman did not start the fight, and you are lying to yourself.
He chased him but did not tackle or touch him? Zimmerman chased Trayvon, but Trayvon did not feel threatened and therefore did not have a right to defend himself... but Zimmerman did. Really?
My perspective in my post was that of a libertarian and not that of the "authorities." From a libertarian perspective, a person can follow and watch another as long as there is no violation of the rules of the owner of the private property. Both Zimmerman and Martin had a right to be in the communal area of that property.
Your use of the term chase suggests that Zimmerman was following Martin in an attempt to do immediate bodily harm to Martin. There is no evidence of this. Martin's friend that was on the phone with him did not indicate this and the location of where Zimmerman's vehicle was relative to the altercation does not suggest this.
There were no indications of any bruises on Zimmerman's hands, which would have been consistent with Zimmerman hitting Martin. There were bruises on Martin's hands consistent with him hitting Zimmerman. I am assuming that Martin hit Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
How is observing from afar the same as chasing and pursuing on the aggression scale?
How is it that Zimmerman had a right to feel threatened and defend himself, but Trayvon didn't?
Watching from afar occurs by many, busybodies, peeping toms, etc. Watching from afar is not an indication of immediate danger of life or limb.
Then I come to your site and I see articles about how "police are tracking your movements in databases."
In my post, I link to commentary by Prof. Walter Block. In the commentary he does a wonderful job of explaining the lack of a right to privacy , but he goes beyond this and explains why the lack of a right to privacy does not apply to government invasion of our privacy :
There is no right to privacy; none at all. It is not a negative right, all of which are supported by libertarian theory; e.g., the right not to be molested, murdered, raped, etc. Rather, the so called right to privacy is a so called “positive right,” as in the “right” to food, clothing, shelter, welfare, etc. That is, it is no right at all; rather the “right” to privacy is an aspect of wealth. As Murray N. Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 16) made clear, there is only a right to private property, not privacy:
It might, however, be charged that Smith does not have the right to print such a statement, because Jones has a “right to privacy” (his “human” right) which Smith does not have the right to violate. But is there really such a right to privacy? How can there be? How can there be a right to prevent Smith by force from disseminating knowledge which he possesses? Surely there can be no such right. Smith owns his own body and therefore has the property right to own the knowledge he has inside his head, including his knowledge about Jones. And therefore he has the corollary right to print and disseminate that knowledge. In short, as in the case of the “human right” to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s property from invasion. The only right “to privacy” is the right to protect one’s property from being invaded by someone else. In brief, no one has the right to burgle someone else’s home, or to wiretap someone’s phone lines. Wiretapping is properly a crime not because of some vague and woolly “invasion of a ‘right to privacy’,” but because it is an invasion of the property right of the person being wiretapped.
The government, of course, has no right to invade our privacy, since it has no rights at all. It should not exist. Period. It is an illegitimate institution, since it initiates violence against innocent people. Therefore, it can have no right to do anything. Anything.
Libertarians complain so much about aggression, but then can't see that pursuing someone is an act of aggression?
Again, here you are using a word pursuing that can have a connotation that means more than simply watching and following. Watching and following is what Zimmerman was doing, but that in no way implies pursuit in the way a fox pursues a rabbit.
I understand what is meant when you and Walter Block say “there is no right to privacy”. However, for the purposes of communicating with others (and non-libertarians occasionally stumble upon libertarian websites) I think it is better to word this same concept differently. The very people who might be the most shocked by such a statement are MORE likely to become libertarian than, for example, those who think Snowden should be roasted alive over a spit fire. I think it would be better to say “Privacy is dependent upon the right to property.” One could use this analogy. Suppose two strangers broke into your home and began having sex in your bed. Would you have a right to know what they are doing and why? Of course you would. In their own home they have a right to do whatever they want without interference, in your home however, they only do if they have your permission.
Again, I want to stress here, I have no objection to your conclusions, only with the way you worded it. Libertarians have enough enemies in the world. We should not make more of them out of those who value privacy. Privacy advocates are valuable allies in many fights against government intrusion. We simply need them to see that privacy cannot exist without property rights.
There is no unbreakable link between privacy and private property. If a woman is bathing on her roof top in a bikini in NYC and a man in a high rise in a nearby building has a telescope and is watching her, her privacy would be invaded but it would not be a violation of libertarian principle---anymore so than a man turning around in a restaurant to look at a decent set of legs.
I am a fan of EPJ. But Unfortunately, on this one, you are off on social theories and sociology. Maybe even criminal justice.
Since Martin is dead, to explain what he did prior to witnesses and the beating would be futile. It's foolish to say he "confronted" Zimmerman. No one knows.
It is hard to know anything with 100% certainty in this world. However, the location of the altercation suggests that Martin doubledbacked to confront Zimmerman. Further, the evidence relative to the bruises on Martin's fists and the injuries on Zimmerman suggest that Martin was the aggressor.
BTW, your point is about the facts of the case and not " social theories and sociology. Maybe even criminal justice."
I can speculate, too. See: Zimmerman has a history of violence with people, including the police. With these facts at hand, Zimmerman confronted Martin, and out of fear Martin used self defense and was killed as a result.
See how speculation is useless.
It's useless if you don't want to consider the all facts of the case, including the bruises on Martin's hands and the damage to Zimmerman's nose and head.
Finally, Martin heeding the two options provided would have possibly led to a different outcome. A bigger discussion could be had but that's for possibly another time.
Why are the two options a discussion for "possibly another time"? That was the point of my post, libertarianism suggests civility and had Martin been a libertarian, who respected libertarian principles, he would be alive today.