Sent: Fri 3/18/2016 6:38 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Nathan Fryzek
Dear Prof. Block: Don’t us Libertarians have to take a stance as either pro or anti religion? Let me give you an example.
It is a religious custom in many religions to circumcise infants without any pain medication. If you are a religious libertarian you might think this is totally okay since gaining entrance to heaven is in the infant’s best interest, and if circumcision helps in that regard, it is acceptable under libertarian law. If you are an atheist however, you would say it is not in the best interest of the infant to be circumcised, and the doctor who does so should be arrested for assault.
I don’t see why the judge has to make any determination about religion. Circumcision is child abuse, even if God wants it. It should be against the law.
Dear Prof. Block:
But a libertarian judge would have to make a judgement on whether religion is true or untrue. If it is true then no abuse has occurred vs if religion is untrue then a great deal of a use has occurred.
Libertarians qua libertarains, have no views on music, chess, nor religion. None of them violate the NAP, per se.
On circumcision, see this:
Testa, Pat and Walter E. Block. 2014. “Libertarianism and
circumcision” *International Journal of Health Policy and Management;*
Article 8, Volume 3, Issue 1
tml, June, Page 33-40; http://www.ijhpm.com/;
Block, Walter E. and Michael Fleischer. 2010. “How Would An Anarchist
Society Handle Child Abuse?” October 13;
Walter E. Block and Rafi Farber. 2014. “On Circumcision.” July 7;
A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%294:09 pm on February 9, 2019 Email Walter E. Block