What is the Government's Proper Role in Fighting Ebola in a Libertarian World?
Newsweek interviewed a bunch of libertarians, including moi, about what role the government could legitimately play in addressing the Ebola "crisis" and was surprised by the responses. Why? Because, contra popular myths, not
one said that it should just stand back and let the disease run amuck. Notes the story:
The[ir] answer is more nuanced than one might expect: Most Libertarians interviewed by Newsweek agreed government should intervene to protect public health in exceptional circumstances, but said intervention would have to be very careful and limited—and, perhaps, that it is better executed by the private sector.
Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at Reason Foundation, the Libertarian think tank that publishes Reason magazine, explains to Newsweek the starting point of most Libertarian belief is a limited government that provides "essential" functions, such as national defense. But in certain circumstances—if a person had a deadly communicable disease and refused to isolate himself, for example—governmental intervention could be considered essential…
Read the whole thing here.
