Of course we are asked from time to time if it is fully legitimate to prduce and sell a product such as the Loop Tagger. For this reason we have decided to get Aleksa Burmazovic as an ethics adivsor onboard. In order to introduce him and to show what his work is about we asked him three very importan ethical questions.
Aleksa, you are the ethics advisor here at LoopTagger Inc. and probably it’s not an easy job to get things straight all the time. We are facing the problem that we don’t control what our customers do with the technology. To get a better understanding of the situation, we’ve been developing a categorization of moral and immoral usecases based on the agorist five markets theory:
Immoral use: any form of unpermissioned usage on private property
Moral use: permissioned use on private property
Now the big question is, how do we categorize public space?
Can you bring clarity into this and how do we make sure to establish and maintain postivice and ethical usecases?
AB: The categorisation of space as “public and private” is invalid. There is owned and unowned space. When space is owned, the owner’s consent is instrumental. When it is not owned, it may be freely homesteaded. Part of this may include the use of items such as the LoopTagger.
Heckler & Koch and others sell armory well aware of the fact that it is used to act agains the non aggression principle, however the positive aspects and market demand seem to outweigh the bad factors. Can we apply similar principles to the Loop Tagger?
AB: The manufacture and sale of items (unless fraudulent or done under such pretenses) is always ethical. The utilitarian argument can be made and legislation may be adhered to as a matter of professional standard. All manner of products can be used for criminal deeds, and it is not the originator who should bear the responsibility.
Do ends justify the means, for example if a tagger is used in a crisis zone or when dictatorship is treathening the population? How should one draw the lines between justified and unjustified action?
AB: In a crisis zone, as anywhere else, the categories of owned and unowned space exist. An authoritarian regime or military group that secures its “property” through violent or fraudulent means is subject to homesteading. Alternatively, the true and ethical owner’s permission ought be asked.
To add to this, in natural rights theory, those agressed against have the right to defend themselves and their property. The logical consequence of this is that somebody punched in the face may be justified in shooting the attacker. However, society may choose to punish the “defender” in a non-aggressive manner if they find the “defence” as too much.