Here’s a simple hypothetical question I’ve yet to see libertarians address properly, and now's as good a time as any to ask it: What is the role of government in a time of actual plague?
Now, if you’re an anarchist, you can leave the chat now, since you don’t think there’s a role for government at all. That things will all just magically work out for the best when there’s a market for force. (Good luck to you on that one.)
No, I'm talking here to principled libertarians who aren’t primarily anti-government but pro-liberty. So I’m asking this of principled pro-liberty libertarians who support the idea that the proper role of government is the protection of citizens’ individual rights, that governments should be tied up constitutionally, and that such governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. Let’s call it one such administration Government X. And I'm asking: What should our Government X do in a time of actual plague?
Argue here if you like that a carrier of an infectious disease can in no way violate anyone else’s individual rights, in which case you’re either making a damn good argument for that position (and could apply it for example to HIV/AIDs as well), or you’re probably also leaving the chat at this point to join the anarchists.
But (to concretise the question for you), imagine Government X were in power when a plague slowly took over the country. To keep it somewhat concrete, imagine if you like that we’re in Elizabethan times, in London, when plagues would regularly ravage the place, and the Master of the Rolls would shut down the London theatres so the plague wouldn’t spread that way. Now you can say, as I would, that there shouldn't be a Master of Rolls. And you can argue, as historians have done, that his decision helped spread the plague even more widely because the theatre companies went on tour, taking plague rats with them. But do you say that our Elizabethan Government X wouldn’t at least have a conversation about theatre attendance, and make some decision about it? Perhaps, at least, to devise some objective rules by which if they're followed theatres and other places may stay open (remembering that the Elizabethans didn’t even know rats’ fleas were plague’s cause, and that those wanting to attend the theatres might themselves be eager to see evidence of some kind of protection; and that Elizabethan theatre insurance probably didn't cover damages from killing your audience.)
Let’s make the decision even more difficult for you. Imagine that it’s a serious plague; that it's often (but not always) fatal within a certain period of time; and that a patient infected with our plague generally doesn’t even know they have it for several days, during which time they are already terribly infectious to others. So, it’s a new plague about which even those whose advice you value know little yet (that’s ‘cos it’s new, and Elizabethan science advice wasn't always that great — they still recommended leeches, if you recall). But those two deadly observations about this new plague seem to be the emerging facts.
This puts an even more complex complexion on things, doesn't it. If this were so, don’t you think our whole population would would be having a chat about it, not least our Elizabethan Government X? About how to deal with apparently uninfected folk infecting uninfected others, without infringing the rights of either? (And if you’re saying at this point that we should all be left "free" to be infected, then you’re probably about ready to leave the chat and buy a straitjacket.)
It’s no good just saying about our Elizabethan Government X that “they have no role,” since clearly they do: if I have an infection that can prove fatal to you, and I insist on still visiting the theatres, there’s as much a role for government as there would be if I went to one wearing a suicide vest. (And you need to leave more than just the chat if you think there isn’t.) And Government X would have as much of a legitimate interest in this plague being spread from theatres as in a bareback brothel boasting a harem with full-blown HIV/AIDs.
Now, you can insist (as I expect on past evidence many libertarians might) that “this isn’t really a plague” — except here we’ve already stipulated that it is. Or that our Elizabethan experts are wrong (which we’ve already agreed they might be). Or that the government is full of power-lusters who are just using the plague to advance their power — as many probably would, as they do in times of war as well, but this doesn’t devalue the very threat of this special plague we’ve imagined, and ignores that we’ve already agreed that we’re talking here of a principled Government X.
So, I ask you again: what is the proper role in such times of our principled Government X?
You tell me.
Here's Monty Python:
14 comments:
First of all it would be necessary to prove the existence of this disease and also to prove it is being transmitted from one person to another. That is, that a person who has the disease is capable of causing others to contract the disease simply by being in the proximity of those other people. It would also be necessary to demonstrate that any person who has the disease may be unaware that they have the disease and hence they may inadvertently cause others to contract it without any intention to so do (no presence of mens rea).
None of this is trivial. Nevertheless all of it is an absolute necessity. The disease must be proved to exist and further it must be proved that it is transmitted by the proximity of people to one another inadvertently. A vector of transmission has to be proved to exist.
Finally, this ALL must be accomplished independently of parties which stand to gain materially. That is, those who make profit or gain power from the presence of the disease and any political actions pertaining to it.
Until these items are resolved the question asked is moot.
Before asking, as Lenin once did, what is to be done it is necessary to first prove there is a problem which demands something be done.
First of all it would be necessary to prove the existence of this disease and also to prove it is being transmitted from one person to another. That is, that a person who has the disease is capable of causing others to contract the disease simply by being in the proximity of those other people. It would also be necessary to demonstrate that any person who has the disease may be unaware that they have the disease and hence they may inadvertently cause others to contract it without any intention to so do (no presence of mens rea).
None of this is trivial. Nevertheless all of it is an absolute necessity. The disease must be proved to exist and further it must be proved that it is transmitted by the proximity of people to one another inadvertently. A vector of transmission has to be proved to exist.
Finally, this ALL must be accomplished independently of parties which stand to gain materially. That is, those who make profit or gain power from the presence of the disease and any political actions pertaining to it.
Before asking (as Lenin did) what is to be done, it is necessary to prove there is a problem which rationally and morally requires something proper be done.
Until these items are resolved the question you asked is moot.
Informed consent. The Swedish model is better than government edict as far as public space is concerned. Private companies putting in place measures to protect their staff and customers is their perogative not the governments. The government should not try to tell us who can use a cafe or theatre. Or close down a butcher or small business.
The AIDS example is entirely reasonable. Individuals who knowingly infect others by active interaction with others commit a crime. Individuals who breathe in a public space are exercising their rights. It is up to others to protect themselves from airborne and courtesy of individuals to try to avoid public spaces when knowingly infectious. Quarantine of the likes of Typhoid Mary in extreme cases after proven unreasonable behaviour is also likely reasonable but government action needs to be examined on a case by case basis.
@Anonymous: the question already stipulates those conditions exist. So you’ve just avoided the question. Well done.
@Phil S: Not sure you have a conclusion there. Yes, private action is preferred, but above that is still rights protection (most especially right to life). “Case by case” sounds like a cop out to me. In this case, I.e., our example, *where* you breathe, and on whom, in a situation where you don’t know you’re infectious … that’s the case you have to answer.
Nobody is forcing the patrons to go to the theatre. They can choose to go to a theatre that imposes strict protections or one that doesn't. The pandemic risk could be argued to be no different to any other risk you accept when you leave the house.
@TWR: "Nobody is forcing the patrons to go to the theatre" You ignore the effect on the theatre's neighbours? And further afield? You say the theatre, or theatre-goers, bear no responsibility for infecting others?
"...could be argued ..." Is that really what you want to be arguing?
Come on, let's have. serious response.
@PC Your question is moot because of the assumptions you introduced into it. THAT is the point. So you've just avoided comprehension. Can't say well done, because you didn't do well.
Try harder.
You’ve done really well Pete at throwing out some breadcrumbs that should lead anyone who’s smart and objective to some rational conclusions on this topic. But the responses to date, and the speed in which they’ve occurred (compared to other more significant topics which rarely illicit any response) demonstrate their response is predominantly emotional and anti-government rather than pro-liberty. My suggestion is to disengage from them completely rather than trying to convince them.
PS - What I just said might seem contra to my earlier comments to you about the value in engaging with people you disagree with, but we’ve heard this same bullshit before and we’ve learnt everything we can from it, so I think it’s time to move on from it to something more productive.
There certainly is a role for government in the time of plague. Freedom doesn’t mean you are free to infect others, knowingly or unknowingly. So do you lock everyone up because we don’t know if they are infectious?Serious question.
If we're to imagine that it’s a full blown Rat plague in an Elizabethan like environment as you've described, then I guess Emergency powers would have to be declared and quarantines put in place (as Phil S. stated). Is that the conclusion you're leading us to? Peter, you're not trying to justify the stance you took against the unvaccinated here by using this hypothetical?
MarkT
How weak.
First thing I think is the plague is a natural phenomenon and people are just hosts.
Next I think that it's people's responsibility to protect themselves and not governments role to protect them .
Post a Comment