[karzeem]

The other responses to this would probably be agreeable to most "techno-libertarians", but I don't think they're quite correct as to how this natural right is derived.

They don't actually posit a natural right to anonymity specifically. The core idea is that the only moral use of force is self-defense. Therefore, it would be immoral for people to use force against you (in this system, laws are considered force because the government backs them with the threat of arrest) if you're not using force against them.

"Anonymous communication being a non-violent act, it is immoral to use force to suppress anonymous communication" ~= "the government has no right to shut down sites like Silk Road"

[jmilloy]

My first reaction is that fallacies and double standards abound, in this brief description. Can you point me to a more in depth reference, so I can inform myself before trying to reply?

For example: Is it moral to aid someone in their self defense? How are groups of people treated in relation to individual people? Under what circumstances, if any, is responsibility transferable? At what point are my actions no longer force (even though the results of my actions might be)?

[karzeem]

Good questions, there are disagreements on those points even among libertarians. It's tough to name a single digestible reference because this is such a broad subject. But this one is pretty comprehensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

[jmilloy]

Okay, thanks. Some of the references from the article are good, too.

It's more or less clear how to apply the principle when two individuals interact. People form groups, however, both explicitly and implicitly. If I am part of a group that violates another's rights, am I still not accountable if I am not actually the individual(s) who does the physical act?