As I mentioned briefly in the Q&A section of my Anarcho-Capitalism II lecture, there can exist things outside of market forces existing within a society, such as religion. One can listen to the Pope, obey the Temple laws of Mormonism, peacefully meditate all day: none of these violate any of the axioms upon which libertarianism is founded.

In fact, it is generally held as a stock tenant of libertarian thought that the freedom of religion is undeniable, that people are allowed to worship in anyway they’d like. But I contend this is not necessarily so. I do not believe that the “freedom to believe whatever you want” trumps other freedoms, even though it might sound like it does.

By this I mean that there are certain rights that are more inviolable than the “right” to faith: the right to not be harmed for instance. In fact, insofar as rights exist, they must necessarily follow from the non-aggression axiom (which, along with the right to property, is the absolute bedrock upon which libertarianism is founded). Thus, I contend that if one’s practicing of religion negatively affects unwilling third parties, it is permissible to respond forcefully in self-defense.

The Day of Ashura is a special day for many Muslims. It has cultural and historical significance that are insightful and significant. I would contend that to understand much of the historicity of Islam (especially Shia Muslims), it is necessary to understand the role Husayn ibn Ali played in its early formation. [However, space does not permit an adequate description and you are encouraged to follow the link.] The Day of Ashura commemorates the martydom of Husayn ibn Ali as is celebrated across the globe.

In a few communities, mostly in Lebanon and Iraq, a blood ceremony is held to experience the “sacrificial ecstasy” of martydom. While discouraged by local leadership, it is nevertheless practiced:

[Warning: This video may not be appropriate for all people. View discretion is advised.]

In the video you may catch glimpses of some teens and children that also have blood on them. [Not seen, I don't believe, is that many young children and babies are also made to participate.] People’s head are cut by striking a sharp blade, razor, etc across the scalp repeatedly. People then beat their hands against their head to increase the pain and cause the blood to flow more.

As much as I wouldn’t wish to practice it myself, this sort of behavior amongst consenting adults, I guess I would have to accept. There is a claim that could be made that a form of “religious coercion” could be made, but let us return to that issue at a later time. But can any libertarian honestly claim that doing this to children is okay?

Children are incapable of voluntary action in any meaningful sense. They cannot consent. They cannot agree to this. What are we as libertarians supposed to do about this? If there is evil in this world, are we not responsible to seeing it eradicated? If not us, then who?

© Barry Belmont for UNR Students for Liberty, 2010.
Permalink | 4 comments

I offer this thought experiment for your consideration.

A lady has been pregnant for four months. She planned to get pregnant with her loving husband who he has been nothing but supportive. However, recently she has become depressed. She has thought long and hard about it and she has decided that she would like to kill herself. She knows if she kills herself the baby will not survive. Is she allowed to go through with it?

I believe this thought experiment highlights a dilemma for us libertarians. We believe the idea that the “right to life” is congruent with the “right to death.” That is, if one is allowed to do with their life what they wish, then ending it is as justifiable a measure as any other. (Now, there is some debate as to whether this is entirely true, but, for most of us, we would say that a person has a right to kill themself.)

So, is the mother allowed to take her life knowing that she will take the life of another (we are, for the sake of argument, holding that life begins at the very moment sperm touches egg)? One obvious answer is no, she hasn’t that right. It would be comparable to saying a suicide bomber is justified in detonating in a marketplace. Suicide is ok, murder is not.

The rebuttal, however, is: well, what right do any of us have to force the mother to live? Can we say, justifiably, that we may violate the right to life of one person in order to uphold the right to life of another? I do not believe we can in this case. We cannot agree to this because what it requires is that a third party (who is not in danger of someone violating their right to life and who the two parties concerned have not agreed to let arbitrate the dispute) deciding whose life is more important. Clearly allowing this third party to decide is a violation of both the mother’s and the fetus’s right to life.

What if the mother “evicts” the fetus before she kills herself. She tells her husband to take her to the hospital where the doctors will do everything in their power to save the life of the unborn child. Being only four months old, however, the child has little chance of surviving without the mother’s womb. Is this justified? May she now kill herself?

I think she may. If she does everything in her power to let the child live and yet (due to the inabilities of modern medical techniques or what have you) the child dies, I do not think she could be held culpable for murder any more than a poor mother would for letting her child die by not being able to afford vaccinations. Thus, simply by “evicting” the fetus, the mother is not responsible for murder, even if she knows the child may die.

And I believe this stems from the fact that the “right to life” is simply a form of the “right to property.” Consider a life without a body, without any material property at all: to what extent could this be called a life? If you are religious you may believe that there exists a soul and perhaps that soul has no material property and that may exist, yes—I can grant you that. But, then, in what sense can one “kill” a soul? Without delving into theological complexities, I think we can agree that life as it exists on earth for us right now is, at base, at least tied intractably with physical material—that is, property.

Therefore, the right to life is a facet of property rights. Well, if this is the case, then isn’t the developing fetus responsible for a greater violation of rights than the mother? Even conceding that both the mother and the fetus are violating each other’s right to life in equal proportion (once again, who’s to decide it would be unequal?), isn’t the fetus also violating the property rights of the mother? Surely the womb of a woman is hers. The mother isn’t violating the property rights of the fetus. The fetus has no “right” to live in a womb any more than I do. The fetus has a right to life, yes, but it has no right to usurp property.

If we are just chalking up who has violated the least amount of rights, it can clearly be seen that it is the mother who has done the least amount of rights violations and has had her rights violated the most. We must hold then that it is the mother who we must support in her decision as the more justified. If a pregnant lady wants to kill herself, I think she must be allowed. And if a pregnant lady is allowed to kill herself, I do not see why she cannot simply evict someone from her womb without having to resort to suicide and homicide to do it.

Or am I completely wrong?

© Barry Belmont for UNR Students for Liberty, 2009.
Permalink | 8 comments