An Ivy League student sent the following email to Dr. Walter Block. Dr. Block's responses are in blue.
Dear Professor Block,
Hope you don't mind that I have two more sets of questions for you about
libertarianism!
1. According to libertarianism, parents have no right to aggress against
their child. Then does arranging their child to be vaccinated constitute
aggression (as a needle is being penetrated into the child's body)? How
about circumcision?
2. Suppose A kills both B and C. The heirs of B and C are B' and C'
respectively. I suppose B' and C' are each entitled to enslave A half of
the time? Does B' have the right to execute A, if C' wants A to continue to
work for him? Does B' have the right to cut off one of A's ears, if C'
objects?
Thanks a lot!
A.
Don’t mind? Don’t be silly. This is the third is a series of very important questions you have asked me. I am honored and delighted you have chosen me as your libertarian mentor. See below for my answers. As before, I’m going to blog this, but I shall keep you anonymous.
Hope you don't mind that I have two more sets of questions for you about libertarianism!
1. According to libertarianism, parents have no right to aggress against their child. Then does arranging their child to be vaccinated constitute aggression (as a needle is being penetrated into the child's body)? How about circumcision?
Happily, I have written on both of these issues, so can just refer you to them.
On vaccination:
Block, Walter E. 2013. “Forced Vaccinations.” February 4;
http://lewrockwell.com/block/block217.html
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/walter-e-block/forced-vaccinations/
On circumcision:
Testa, Pat and Walter E. Block. 2014. “Libertarianism and circumcision” International Journal of Health Policy and Management; Article 8, Volume 3, Issue 1, June, Page 33-40; http://www.ijhpm.com/; http://www.ijhpm.com/?_action=press&issue=-1&_is=Articles in Press; http://www.ijhpm.com/article_2849_607.html; http://ijhpm.com/article_2849_607; http://ijhpm.com/article_2849_607.html; http://www.lewrockwell.com/?post_type=article&p=497650&preview=true
Block, Walter E. and Michael Fleischer. 2010. “How Would An Anarchist Society Handle Child Abuse?” October 13; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html (circumcision)
2. Suppose A kills both B and C. The heirs of B and C are B' and C' respectively. I suppose B' and C' are each entitled to enslave A half of the time? Does B' have the right to execute A, if C' wants A to continue to work for him? Does B' have the right to cut off one of A's ears, if C' objects?
No. Rather, B’ and C’ are now half owners of A. They are in the same position as if they each owned 50% of a car or house. If they disagree on anything, e.g., want to do something incompatible with what the other one wants, they, presumably, will go to a (private) mediator. You’re really nasty. You couldn’t give me an easier case, where A murdered B, C and D, you rotten kid? Then, there would be a two to one vote in case of disagreements. Of course, if all three, B’, C’ and D’ wanted to do three different things to A, and there was no two to one vote, then, they could mediate.
In anarchism, who says this is how it's going to be?
ReplyDeleteNo one. Competing dispute resolution companies would arise each pitching people on the benefits of its own particular notion of justice. Then those companies would turn to negotiate compromise agreements with each other. Block is prognosticating what type of punishment he hypothesizes the preponderance of such companies and their customers might gravitate toward as the most just presuming they held libertarian values.
DeleteThe URL's did not work except for one. That one discussed forced vaccinations for adults, not for children. Perhaps Walter will respond in a future TL.
ReplyDelete