Purist libertarians believe in having enough state-enforced rules to prevent people using violence against each other. The gap here is only between deliberate a

Purist libertarians believe in having enough state-enforced rules to prevent people using violence against each other. The gap here is only between deliberate acts of violence and irresponsibility large enough to yield the same effect. Like, if someone gets drunk and punches someone else in the face, libertarians say the police should step in (which requires that they know it's happening). If that person gets drunk and then mows someone down in a car, it's not inconsistent to say police should step in there too. So I can't quite tell if you're in favor of laws against things like drunk/distracted driving but don't want them to actually be enforced, or if you're against the laws themselves. I'm not sure it can be consistent to be for such laws but against the most obvious way of enforcing them. I don't think libertarianism as a classical philosophy has much to say on the topic of surveillance, as it would be captured in having a minimal/small state anyway. But given that it does believe in enforced laws, I can't see where the prohibition against cameras comes from.