Ebola

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

Ebola
unicefguinea / Foter / CC BY-NC

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.

NEXT: Teacher's Aide Sent 14-Year-Old-Girl to Bathroom to Get Sexually Assaulted by a 16-Year-Old Eighth Grade Boy So He Could Get Caught in the Act

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Libertarian answer: privately sold hazmat suits. Can’t afford one? Too fucking bad!

  2. What is the Government’s Proper Role in Fighting Ebloa in a Libertarian World?

    None.

    Next question?

    1. The government’s responsibility is to keep communicably diseased people away from its citizens, thus protecting them from the disease. Protecting their individual right to life.

      The government should make sure people who come to the country do not carry communicable diseases, and it should take the necessary measure to make that happen. Protect people goddamn it.

      God, this is not hard, not hard at all.

  3. The[ir] answer is more nuanced than one might expect

    Yes, it must have been surprising to a brainless jackass that gets their knowledge of libertarians from a John Oliver bit or Paul Krugman.

  4. Ah, and so we see that where the rubber meets the road, “Libertarians’ would force people against their will not to mix with the general public.

    Next thing you know, they’ll support pure food laws so food producers aren’t allowed to poison people…instead of their oft-quoted great idea of letting the dead consumers stop eating said food.

    1. Keep swinging at those strawmen

      1. It’s either not a strawman or you are OK with government regulation. You guys are the absolutists, remember.

        1. Some libertarians are absolutist on some things, therefore all libertarians are either absolutist on every form of government regulation or are inconsistent.

          Impeccable logic, this.

          1. This would be a lot easier if one person articulated his views and then some other unique individual true Scotsman with different views didn’t step in to defend contrary views every time. You find me one person here who’s cool with government food safety regulations.

            1. Show me the true Scotsman and I’ll show you who’s cool with it.

              The point was about “‘Libertarians’ would force people against their will not to mix with the general public.” and craiginmass invented the food safety view.

            2. People can choose not to purchase food they don’t trust. They can’t choose not to breathe the same air as a person with a communicable disease.

              I suppose in an ideal libertarian world, there would be no public spaces so the private spaces could simply declare that nobody who was sick could enter them. Problem solved. De facto quarantine.

              1. *Simply* declare? You mean either declare and protect by force of arms, or declare and ask me to pay taxes to fund government force of arms.

    2. I liked you better when you were “craiginass”.

      1. Well that implies that he is the pitcher and not the catcher, which I doubt.

        1. He could be tossing a salad. craig’s tongue counts as “craig” in something, right?

          1. A homoerotic tongue blasting is known as a “craig”, but only in the gayest districts of San Francisco because other gay communities have found the act to be just too damn gay.

          2. I believe craig means “rock” in Gaelic.

            In which case craiginass is even more appropriate.

      2. Like the governor of Colorado..Dickinpooper.

        (Sorry, his name just makes me giggle.)

    3. But lo and speak of the devil, a brainless jackass just appeared!

    4. So without pure food laws, (passed and enforced by people who don’t really understand them, and coming with a huge price tag and no cost benefit analysis) it would be legal for me to poison you?

    5. Wait a minute. I expected that when we finally reached Libertopia, I’d finally be able to spray anthrax all over my lawn.

      Now these soi-disant libertarians are telling me no? Whatever happened to principles, man?

      1. Didn’t you know that libertarianism is all about doing whatever you want with no liability or consequences at all?

    6. Lol, it’s like listening to a child trying to make a political point. How cute.

    7. Hey fucktard, yes, if you are exposing others to a deadly fucking disease, then you are making an aggression on them.

      All libertarians (read not anarchists, who are our friends) believe government has essential functions, one of which is to protect its citizenry against aggression.

    8. People have a choice about what food they buy. They don’t have a choice about what people they come into contact with in a public space.

      It’s not that hard to figure out.

  5. Libertarians don’t have to worry about Ebola because they never leave their moms’ basements.

    1. best/worst twitter comment this week -backstory first: I have Wes Welker on my team. He was nowhere to be seen for 58 minutes of the Broncos game. I (and I never do this) went to twitter to see if he had been benched etc…what I got was a string of angry fantasy players and funny tweets…

      Wes Welker doesn’t have to worry about Ebola, he can’t catch anything!


      boom

    2. ok, I laughed.

    3. Hey! I resent that statement. Sometimes mom forgets to cut the crusts off my PB&J and I have to go up and do it myself.

    4. That’s bullshit. I leave every wednesday afternoon to pick up her Dr. Scholls.

  6. There’s no such thing as a “proper role” for government. Always asking the wrong question…

  7. The correct libertarian answer is “my immune system is protected by Smith and Wesson”.

    Unless that’s one of the gun manufacturers we’re supposed to hate, in which case substitute Sig Sauer or something.

    1. Smith and Wesson… and legal homemade moonshine.

  8. What libertarian world? How do I get a one way ticket there?

    1. “What libertarian world? How do I get a one way ticket there?”

      It’s at the corner of Electric Ladyland and the place with the 72 virgins.

      I can certainly understand the appeal. But when I grew up, I put aside childish thoughts and things.

      1. Son, it’s time to take your medication.

        1. “Son, it’s time to take your medication.

          Is that you, Koch’s porn star grand daughter?

          1. Turd.Burglar.

      2. I love how desperate proggies are to show the world how mature and worldly they are and they never fail to demonstrate the opposite.

        1. Being a proggie means never giving up on childish thoughts, and in fact, basing your entire philosophy on them.

          1. You missed the scare quotes around “thoughts” and “philosophy.”

            Progressives think in the same way that a dog thinks. It’s 100% operant conditioning. They’re conditioned by their leaders to react positively to certain stimuli and negatively to others.

            This becomes a philosophy only in the sense that a mouse pushing the Orgasm button while starving itself to death is a philosophy.

            1. “They’re conditioned by their leaders to react positively to certain stimuli and negatively to others.”

              Perhaps you can tell me who my leader is since I have absolutely no idea – not a single individual in politics who I really look up to……

              I mean….I have a thing for folks like Musk, Buffet, Cuban, etc……but not as leaders, rather as folks who have some common sense and balls.

              1. “Perhaps you can tell me who my leader is since I have absolutely no idea – ”

                That’s kind of the point.

      3. But when I grew up, I put aside childish thoughts and things.

        But not childish emotions, clearly. All you needed to know you learned in kindergarten–too bad you stopped there.

  9. God knows what “libertarians” would think. Classical liberals, however, would say that the government only has a role to play where people’s interactions with each other create obvious harms or disputes. In this case someone who is infected with a communicable disease is creating a danger to those around them. The default answer is they listen to their doctors and voluntarily quarantine themselves. And that is going to happen most of the time. But in the case of the odd lunatic who for whatever reason will not refrain from harming others, then the government must step in and prevent him from doing so. This is no different in principle than the police showing up and arresting someone who is shooting at people. This is only a problem for the voices that live in Progs’ heads.

    1. “Classical liberals, however, would say that the government only has a role to play where people’s interactions with each other create obvious harms or disputes.”

      Well, I would generally concur with that. But modern society is not checkers, it’s chess…..times 10,000.

      Meaning that lots of things create harm in the eye of one party or another…obvious to me is not obvious to you.

      Look at condo associations. Heck, some thing a car parked in your driveway is harmful.

      1. I should have breastfed you when you were a baby.

        1. And not dropped him on his head when you were drunk.

          1. Or dropped him from higher up.

            1. You should have had an abortion.

              1. Is it finally time to legalize 180th trimester abortions? We can call it the “Craiginmass affordable child protection and anti-terrorist super patriot act” to ensure it’s passage.

      2. create obvious harms or disputes.”

        Being offended isn’t harmful no matter how many times you declare otherwise.

      3. KNEEL BEFORE MUH AUTHORITAH

      4. The world being more complex means the government has less of a role to play you fucking half wit. Its called the information problem. The government couldn’t run a 1930s level economy and have it successfully produce a toaster. And now you claim that the world being even more complex justifies it running things now.

        You need to realize you believe in a completely discredited and ancient set of beliefs. Your way failed and failed spectacularly. At some point you are going to have to come to terms with that. You are probably too young and clearly you are too pig ignorant to understand the implications of the failure of communism. So you just going to have to get smarter.

        1. The only revolutionary set of ideas was the Enlightenment.

          Understanding this is one of the main differences between libertarians and everyone else. Conservatives ALMOST get it, Progressives reject the ideas of the Enlightenment, and would bring us back to serfdom. Whether they understand that this is the logical conclusion of their ideology or not, I don’t know.

          But I don’t make much distinction between stupid and evil. They have the same outcome.

          1. having heard several liberals define liberalism, i can assure you that they have no clue that they aren’t even liberals, let alone that serfdom is the logical outcome of liberal ideology.

        2. Why would progtards get smarter when they can just get more emotional? It’s all about how it makes them feel.

        3. “Your way failed and failed spectacularly”

          Which is why we became the economic and other miracle of history in the time period(s) when “my way” steered the country!

          And also why we went down the tubes when conservatives rules (see: Great Recession – Iraq War, etc.)

          1. You must either be an abject moron or willfully ignorant if you think that policies dont have consequences that last beyond the current political term. We are _still_ suffering the results of the New Deal to this day. Just because a politician is smart enough to structure a program to not collapse until the end of his term doesn’t mean jack shit about the merits of the program. (this is even assuming that utilitarian arguments suffice, which isn’t conceded)

          2. Which is why we became the economic and other miracle of history in the time period(s) when “my way” steered the country!

            LIES.

          3. Tell you what, big boy. Go read up on the Panic of 1807 and how it led to the Fed, and pay particular attention to how many of its causes were a direct result of government regulation intended to fix previous panics, or to finance the Civil War. Then look into how many of the 1907 problems were actually addresses by the Fed, let alone fixed.

            There are plenty of strawmen you could tease out of that one field, and most people wouldn’t know what you were talking about, so you’d have more opportunity for malarkey than you do here with your current line.

          4. Wrong, you fucking idiot.

            We became the economic and other miracle of history because you haven’t been quite capable of strangling the market yet, as it has outmaneuvered you so far.

            Your way has failed and failed spectacularly over and over again. You have the arrogance to believe that if you just put in the RIGHT Top Men, it will be different this time.

            A basic understanding of how power works evades you. You are so fucking stupid/arrogant that you cannot even admit that hey, those libertarians have a point there.

            Sorry, fuckface, you’re a retard. And you’re the worst type of retard, one who thinks they are intelligent.

            1. “hey, those libertarians have a point there.”

              Hey, a broken clock is right a couple times a day, GW Bush said things which were great, and I’m sure many Hitler and Stalin actions and quotes were worthy of reading about…..

              But that doesn’t mean any more than me telling you that Rastafarians have a point. They do! Many of them.

              1. What the fuck is wrong with you?

                I think suicide is your best option.

          5. Which is why we became the economic and other miracle of history in the time period(s) when “my way” steered the country!

            You mean the period when defense spending outstripped every other government budget item?

            1. “You mean the period when defense spending outstripped every other government budget item?”

              Was that 1948-1970?

              1. How about the Great Depression?

                1936: Defense spending takes up 29% of the budget–more than double any other line item except for agriculture.

                http://www.usgovernmentspendin…..83#usgs302

                The beauty of that site is that you can pull up any year from the time period you brag about and the data stays rather consistent, even when you take out WW2 and Korean War spending.

                But don’t take the site’s cited government sources word for it–you can check out James Clayton’s essay collection “Economic Impact of the Cold War” which brings up the same data.

      5. “Heck, some thing a car parked in your driveway is harmful.”
        And some people would be wrong. Of course, if someone truly believes they are being harmed, they can always argue it in civil court.
        The complexity of society is not an excuse for the immorality of using force to try to make order of the wonderful variety of human life. And society is not checkers or chess, it’s individuals living their lives. Only creeps like you think of it as some game with masters moving the pieces.

        1. The complexity of society is not an excuse for the immorality of using force to try to make order of the wonderful variety of human life.

          That’s all you do.

          And society is not checkers or chess, it’s individuals living their lives. Only creeps like you think of it as some game with masters moving the pieces.

          You’re the sick fuck advocating that these individuals be severely taxed and restricted. You always advocate centralized power and state solutions to every perceived problem. With this comment you’ve demonstrated that you look in the mirror and see the opposite of what you are.

          1. Are you sure you’re replying to the right person?

            1. You are correct. Apparently I need to checkdemusernames. His syntax is similar to craig’s posts that I’ve been unfortunately reading up and down the threads.

              1. Lol, I was starting to think you had a personal gripe with me.

              2. ‘With this comment you’ve demonstrated that you look in the mirror and see the opposite of what you are.’
                Although being the opposite of craiginass makes me happy.

                1. It should! You’re welcome.

      6. Meaning that lots of things create harm in the eye of one party or another.

        If you can prove harm then a libertarian will agree that there should be some form of restitution. If you can’t prove harm… well, then sorry about your feelz, now kindly stop enabling the totalitarian state and STFU.

        But modern society is not checkers, it’s chess…..times 10,000.

        And since grand masters are now being beat by computers, the only solution is to replace Top Men with Skynet.

        Wait, what?

      7. Well, I would generally concur with that. But modern society is not checkers, it’s chess…..times 10,000

        Well it’s just a good thing that we have real geniuses in government to handle all of that.

        /derp

      8. Look at entirely voluntary condo associations.

        What about them?

        1. “Look at entirely voluntary condo associations.

          What about them?”

          We have voluntary citizenship also….last time I looked. You can go to Hong Kong since that usually scores #1 in Libertarian “freedom”.

          1. Choosing your slaver =/= choosing your condo board. Retard.

          2. After you pay all the taxes and penalties to leave of course. You also completely ignore the fact that people generally aren’t born into HOAs but are born into a nation. It’s also easier and cheaper to move one neighborhood over than to leave your country of birth as well as your friends and family. Plus you ignore the fact that(continuing your analogy) the government is breaking the contract, not individuals.

            1. “hey, those libertarians have a point there.”

              You need an update on intercontinental travel, which started defining humanity BIG TIME in about 1500, but was even popular well before that.

              Of course, Canada and Mexico are even easier to get to….just drive over the border.

              But you can’t tell me that paying $500-$1500 and getting on a plane is too high a price for getting to your paradise.

              Yet, it seems you think forcing your ways onto the existing USA (310+ million) is OK because you don’t have the balls to move??

              Fantastic.

              1. Yet, it seems you think forcing your ways onto the existing USA

                I’m sorry what? Isn’t that precisely what you (and virtually everyone else) do?

                Amazing argument you have there.

              2. Hey, it’s Tony’s theory of “Tyranny of Liberty”!

                Congrats, you’ve dropped another notch into the abyss of stupidity. I didn’t think it was possible, but I don’t think science has yet found the bottom.

              3. Stopping extortion and coercion= forcing my ways onto the existing USA?

                But let’s play your game anyway, since this country was started as an exercise in limited government why don’t progs leave for one of the many more statist countries? You’ve got a lot to pick from, the UK, Cuba, Venezuela.

                Or you know, we could be fucking adults and use persuasion.

                1. I reject the idea that I have to use persuasion to stop people from raping me.

              4. Interesting. So when a private company refuses to pay for a particular form of birth control, it’s too much to expect employees who are unhappy to work elsewhere, but if a country’s government forces its citizens to pay for that person’s birth control (and anything else the government decides they should cover) then it’s totally reasonable to expect any citizens who disagree to pack their shit up, abandon their homes, and flee to another country?

                Sweet. Tell me more about how libertarians want to force people to do things against their will.

              5. Let’s say I move out of the US and take MY money with me.

                First, I have to pay a certain percentage of MY money to the IRS, no matter where I live.

                Second, unless I renounce my US citizenship, I will continue to pay taxes on any income made outside the US to the USG, forever, in addition to the taxes I would have to pay to whatever nation I move to.

                Third, the only way to avoid US taxes is to renounce my citizenship, in which case I will pay an additional expatriation tax of about 30% of all assets, whether or not they were gained in the US.

                I’m not willing to renounce my citizenship, and to be honest, it cheaper to eliminate people like you who think I should be paying for your “free stuff”.

                1. “Third, the only way to avoid US taxes is to renounce my citizenship”

                  That was the whole idea here. Since Hong Kong and Singapore are economically free, you’d be much better off there – even if you paid a penalty for going in the first place. What would Galt do? I’ll tell you what he wouldn’t do. He wouldn’t think he could actually change the way things are done in the USA. That’s foolish.

          3. I’m hearing faint echoes of ‘murica love it or leave it….

            1. “I’m hearing faint echoes of ‘murica love it or leave it….”

              Definitely another Red State construct – still, just like the Free State Project (isn’t NH about to elect a Dem instead of the con?), you have freedom to travel and lead by example.

              No one is telling you to go anywhere. But you could set a fine example if you did. It beats complaining – that doesn’t set any reasonable example.

              1. Definitely another Red State construct

                That you seem to love. Think about that for a second.

                No one is telling you to go anywhere

                Yet you come awfully close in this and your post from 3:05.

              2. It doesn’t matter where you live, fuckstick, our rights are not granted by government. But you don’t believe in that, do you, slime? Government is your religion.

              3. Well, I know it’s hard to believe, but many people have lives that extend beyond the realm and reach of the government. Government is not synonymous with culture, or society, or community, and putting up with a government that is worse than some (and not as bad as some others) so that I can live in the culture, society, and community that I enjoy is a price I’m obviously willing to pay.

                Not to mention disgusting statists like you have less of a legitimate claim to this turf than individualists. No one is telling you where to go, you can set a fine example if you left, but the only reason you aren’t complaining is because your thuggish ideology has a safe home in the hearts of every mini-totalitarian in this country and has been established as the new norm. Of course, even a fellow statist like George W. threw you into a hissy fit, so it might not take much to actually get you to leave.

      9. Isn’t a car parked in your driveway harmful? It blocks you in & out, doesn’t it?

    1. Finally the plague of animal fucking will end! We now have a law!

      1. A law? Or do you mean a baa?

          1. Gives new meaning to eff ewe.

            1. Would sheep fucking now be considered “on the lamb”?

              lawl

    2. After an unsettling rise in animal sex tourism

      I had no idea this was a thing.

      1. What? You have never heard the expression ‘Dog and Pony show’? What exactly do you think that means?

        *snickers*

  10. I have no idea if this is the full history or not. If it is true, Woodrow Wilson is as usual even worse than you thought he was.

    In 1917, the war to end all wars was well under way. At Camp Funston within the boundaries of Fort Riley, Kansas, sergeants were turning recruits into doughboys. During their training, the soldiers picked up backpacks, rifles, helmets?and a new strain of flu. They carried all these with them as they traveled from the camp to the railroads, the big cities, the ports and, ultimately, overseas. On every step of the way to the trenches in Western Europe, they spread the deadly disease.

    When news of the epidemic reached Washington, the White House decided it was a national-security problem. The British and French desperately needed reinforcements to turn the tide of the war; getting our boys over there was far more important than stopping the spread of the flu over here.

    The administration insisted on pressing full speed ahead with the deployments. The White House also wanted every factory worker on the job and every red-blooded American to show up at mass rallies to buy more war bonds?all activities that spread the disease more quickly.

    1. President Wilson took one precaution. He transferred the Public Health Service to military control. Support the military effort, not the public health, became Surgeon General Rupert Blue’s main mission.

      In less than a year, the Kansas outbreak had become a global pandemic. It was commonly referred to as the “Spanish flu.” Spain was a nonbelligerent in the First Word War. The government had not imposed press censorship. As a result, widespread news of the disease’s deadly progress appeared first in Spain. Most assumed that was where the problem started.

      http://nationalinterest.org/fe…..rror-11450

      1. Wilson was The Devil; however, the Spanish flu would have spread everywhere anyways. It even wiped out Eskimo villages isolated from everybody. That being said, perhaps a slower spread would have favoured a less deadly strain? Maybe?

        What I found really interesting was the fact that Spain was a non-belligerent in WW1 and WW2. All that peace-it’s no wonder it’s been such a libertarian paradise.

        1. Weren’t they non-belligerents because of the fact that they were in the middle of a communist revolution?

          1. I thought that was during the ’30s?

            1. Yeah ’35 or so. Evidently Spain prided itself on neutrality during WWI. On the other hand, Franco had his hands full at home during WWII, quelling the Maquis. He was also ready and willing to jump in with the Axis, especially considering the war debt they owed the Nazis, but Hitler didn’t like him or something. (this is the extent of my Spanish WWII knowledge)

      2. Nothing awful about Wilson surprises me anymore. I think he might be the worst president ever.

        1. He was a fascist, much like every other progressive of his day. I love pointing out how progressives loved Hitler and Mussolini until they realized they could use war to subvert more of our civil liberties.

          1. The progressive disagreement with the fascists was geopolitical, not philosophical.

        2. Nothing awful about Wilson surprises me anymore. I think he might be the worst president ever.

          He and FDR are co-champions I reckon.

          1. For some reason I was making a list of worst presidents in my head over the weekend. Wilson and FDR were at the top. Followed by Nixon, Obama and GW Bush.

            1. Nixon is so…mixed. Ended the draft and all but won and ended the Vietnam war. Horrible on tons of other things. Want to blame him for ending the gold standard, but that was already fucked and he just defaulting on something that was ruined.

              1. “but won and ended the Vietnam war”

                Can I have some of what you are smoking?

                Ever hear of Hi Chi Mihn city? Yep, it’s what they called Saigon after we left with our tails between our legs.

                Next thing you’ll be telling us how we “won” in the most recent wars.

                Nixon was a madman. Period.

                1. Nixon was a madman. Period.

                  Oh please–that’s just your shitlib programming kicking in. Nixon wasn’t any worse than Kennedy or Johnson, and the only reason he got taken out is because he and the press had a mutually antagonistic relationship. If the press went after the Kennedys with the same zeal they did Nixon, that whole overrated family would be nothing more than a political footnote, instead of the reason the proglydytes went insane during the 60s.

                  1. Nixon started the EPA, and caused the deaths of millions through malaria.

                    He also started the Drug War.

                    He also enacted gun laws with the purpose of keeping them out of the hands of blacks.

                    Nixon was a progressive pile of shit, one of the worst in our history.

          2. FDR ended Prohibition. That single point in his favour makes him better than Wilson. This is like a contest between Ebola and malignant ulceration.

            1. Prohibition was on the ropes regardless. It might have taken another year or two without him pushing it.

              1. I’m convinced nobody in power actually wanted prohibition, they just needed an excuse to create an income tax. FDR had it, so what good was Prohibition? He could start taxing alcohol again, win/win for that evil dickbag.

            2. FDR ended Prohibition.

              Virtually any president elected at the same time would’ve “ended prohibition”. It was deeply unpopular and widely ridiculed policy, the mask was already off. And I’m not so sure that this inevitable policy outcome outweighs how he sold eastern Europe into Soviet slavery for basically nothing except except praise from his pinko advisers.

              I don’t want to hit you with another paragraph of my FDR hate so I’ll leave it there 😉

              1. Besides, at least in formal terms, the presidents had nothing to do with it.

        3. Worse than Lincoln?!?!

          1. The guy who liberated the South was not so much one of our problem presidents.

            1. The guy who started the War of Northern Aggression? You have a hard time arguing that secession is unlawful in a state formed by secession. Such is not to recognize it’s own supposed legitimacy.

              1. “The guy who started the War of Northern Aggression?”

                Ah, so libertarians are right wing, conservative AND confederate…and support economics based on owning human beings?

                WOW…any true libertarian would want the death penalty for slave masters and those who support them.

    2. If you haven’t read it yet, The Great Influenza is a must read.

  11. Obviously the Government’s role is to Ban Ebola.

  12. In Paul.’s libertarian world, the Public health department would get its hand slapped and its role would be returned to fighting and preventing infectious diseases, instead of worrying about my salt intake, fat intake, caffeine intake or whether or not there’s a gun stored in my home properly.

    They would then be forced to re-learn their original jobs, and all the busybodies would have to find work in the private sector.

    1. Public health services have been taken over by people like Craig in Mass. That means they don’t do their jobs anymore. They just do things like study obesity and guns that push Prog politics. What matters is politics not the original or stated purpose of the organization.

    2. The military should take over the CDC’s quarantine functions and resources and the rest should be scrapped.

      1. “The military should take over the CDC’s quarantine functions and resources and the rest should be scrapped.”

        Ah, I suppose we should then quarter the soldiers in our houses?

        1. No. WTF gave you that idea? I meant the rest of the CDC.

    3. That’s something I hadn’t considered; If the CDC were worried about real threats like Ebola, for example, instead of … oh, say Heart Disease & what schools serve for lunch, just -maybe- this wouldn’t be an issue today.

      You know, scarcity of resources, etc.

      1. I don’t mind if the CDC tracks statistics on heart disease and puts out a pamphlet annually which says here’s where we were, here’s where we’re going.

        But that guy should have an office in the copy-machine nook where the coffee pots are.

        1. that guy

          That guy should be a little embarrassed when he tells other people at work what he does.

          “Yeah…I’m the heart disease and obesity guy…hey, somebody’s got to do it.”

  13. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, the government’s proper role in fighting Ebola is to cut funding for any prevention measures while keeping the funding for Benedict Arnold statues. That way when people are dying, they’ll cry and plead until the budget is increased and that way even more money can go to Benedict Arnold statues.

    http://townhall.com/columnists…../page/full

    1. Re: lap83,

      To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, the government’s proper role in fighting Ebola is to cut funding for any prevention measures

      I think Thomas Sowell was using figurative speech, because I know of NO “prevention” measures that government implements that work, or even try to.

      If you think it does, then you have seen too many movies.

    2. Sowell? He is so full of……oh, wait.

      “In truth, the CDC and NIH are swimming in money, just like every other appendage of this ridiculously overpriced, painfully mis-managed government. Like every other agency, they fritter away their money on silly distractions and naked attempts to extend their power. They put more effort into “mission creep” than their actual mission. When confronted with a crisis that exposes an inability to handle core functions, the agency curls into a defensive crouch and begins whining that it’s under-funded.”

      Apparently they spent just 6% of their budget on disease prevention.

      http://humanevents.com/2014/10…..ikes-back/

      1. So we can cut their budget by 94% and still be fine. right?

  14. The survival rates of natural disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes are a direct function of how wealthy people are. Wealthier countries just have more and better options when it comes to dealing with problems in the aftermath–from things like Cholera.

    Epidemics are the same thing. There are so many different factors that go into making an epidemic spread, but they’re all a function of how wealthy the population is.

    The libertarian solution to these problems should have at least something to say about wealth generation. Trade barriers with places like Hati or Africa are unconscionable considering all the people who suffer and die in this world simply because they’re so damn poor.

    The reason we still have hundreds of thousands of new cases of leprosy every year in places like Africa and India is not because those people are wealthy. Show me a relatively wealthy country, and I’ll show you a place where such diseases practically don’t exist and are rarely transmitted.

    1. So, not to be a complete duck, but does this mean that once the worldwide Ebola pandemic wipes out most of the population of Africa and the Indian subcontinent, that there will be vast new tracts of land on which to build the true Libertaria?

      1. Labor is a resource and having more of a resource is better.

        The great thing about international trade and capitalism is that it doesn’t require you to take someone else’s land (or labor) in order to profit form its use.

        Look how much we profit from China. Look how much trade with the UK has benefited them since we stopped being one of their colonies.

        Why would we want to take their land? What a pain in the ass that would be! …we left Somalia behind because it wasn’t worth the trouble. What would be the upside of all that trouble after it was devastated by disease?

        1. I get that, of course. The idea behind “Libertopia” as a political and geographically distinct entity being that it would represent a way for a libertarian society to actually establish itself outside of statist influences such as are found in the current “First World.”

          1. Ugh, sorry for the atrocious use of “being.”

            1. If central Africa were devastated by disease, in the aftermath, I think I’d still rather join the Freestaters in New Hampshire.

              After Europe was devastated by the plague, I think it was a really ugly place–for that reason. I’d hate to be the first outsider to walk in and introduce myself.

              The survivors probably aren’t going to be too fond of outsiders.

              1. Please don’t mistake my original comment for a serious proposal. However, given the opportunity to start fresh with a group dedicated to libertarian principles on land however hostile but containing vast natural resources (as much of Africa does), and little to no state interference, would you expect such a society to be markedly less effective at protecting liberty than New Hampshire with some small percentage of Free Staters?

                1. Malaria would still be a very big obstacle to overcome… Of course, in Libertopia we could probably use DDT to eradicate it without worrying about the Rachel Carson’s of the world. Nevermind.

                  Yeah, we could do it. We’d start years behind without the current infrastructure, but I’m sure with foreign investment we could overcome that in a timeframe that would shock progressives.

                  1. Yeah, being in the tropics doesn’t help.

              2. The survivors probably aren’t going to be too fond of outsiders.

                My friends, Smith & Wesson, don’t believe in “survivors.”

        2. Why would we want to take their land?

          IMPERIALISM

          1. Is there anybody left in the UK who doesn’t think British Imperialism was a big mistake?

            Yeah, that’s why they’d want to–but they shouldn’t want that. I should have worded the question differently.

            1. Well for what it’s worth, former British colonies are doing pretty damn well.

              1. There isn’t any place in the world that’s doing better than it would have–because of British Imperialism.

                Holy shit. If it wasn’t for British Imperialism, we might not be dealing with half the problems we have today.

                Ongoing problems in places like Kenya and Nigeria. …not to mention Iraq, Syria, Kurdistan, and fucking Palestine.

                1. That is bullshit. Lines on a map don’t change the backwardness of places like Iraq. The British Empire was one of the greatest forces for civilization and freedom ever.

                  1. Central planning isn’t the libertarian solution to anything, and British Imperialism was a central planning of everything–of both the economy and the culture.

                    If you think central planning is okay so long as the central planners are of a superior culture, then when people call you a racist, they’re right.

                    No wonder people are stupid about Iraq and Syria! Not only are they too stupid to learn from our own failure to plan someone else’s culture in Iraq, they still don’t know anything about the failure of the British to centrally plan Africa and the Middle East, too!

                    1. Here’s a good bit about the “superiority” of British Imperialism in Kenya:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M….._Emergency

                    2. and British Imperialism was a central planning of everything

                      That’s a valid point that isn’t brought up often enough. If central planning actually worked for anything, the British would still rule the world.

                2. Holy shit. If it wasn’t for British Imperialism, we might not be dealing with half the problems we have today.

                  The British Empire was one of the greatest forces for civilization and freedom ever.

                  The real kicker is that both of these statements are true. From slavery to freedom, freedom to prosperity, prosperity to decadence, and decadence back to slavery. Such is the progression; the quicker the rise, the quicker the fall.

                  1. Yes, they are both true, but I doubt any libertarian believes the British went about it in the right way.

                    1. There is no right way to centrally plan someone else’s culture.

                    2. That is what I mean.

                      Unless you do it like we did with the Japanese, depending on who’s version of history you listen to.

                      They attacked us, we annihilated them and then centrally planned their new government. I’m okay with that.

                    3. That’s true!

                      If you want to firebomb them, nuke them, send MacArthur in with however many troops you need, you might get a better result.

                      Even then, however, we almost lost that occupation, too. There was a huge Japanese communist backlash against the U.S. occupation after the wartime economy fell apart in Japan, and my understanding is that if Japan hadn’t become an import supply and manufacturing center to support America’s efforts in the Korean War, things might have turned out differently–by which I mean worse.

                    4. There is no right way to centrally plan someone else’s culture.

                      That’s why the most powerful state in the world feeding off the most wealthy economy in the world isn’t the United Navajo Tribes or the Cherokee Confederation. English culture and it’s common law traditions are why the Anglosphere are much better off than others.

                    5. Are you or are you not saying that inflicting the superiority of English culture justifies genocide?

                    6. Are you or are you not saying that inflicting the superiority of English culture justifies genocide?

                      I never said anything about supporting genocide. I said there is some benefit in shitting in a latrine instead of your village’s water supply. A benefit unknown prior to European occupation.

                3. There isn’t any place in the world that’s doing better than it would have–because of British Imperialism.

                  Australia, Canada, New Zealand the United States. It’s not British imperialism itself that lent to the prosperity of the inhabitants of these lands, it’s the culture that British imperialism brought with it. One of property rights and ostensible respect for liberty. We inherited that tradition as a byproduct of British imperialism. Go look at Spanish speaking countries and see the political culture that they inherited versus that of the Anglosphere. A night and day difference in governance. The Spanish were the premier slavers and looters. The British were capital investors who preserved the value of their capital stock.

                  Ongoing problems in places like Kenya and Nigeria. …not to mention Iraq, Syria, Kurdistan, and fucking Palestine.

                  In the case of Nigeria and Kenya I know that they have telephone poles, some concept of sanitation, some edifices of law and education whereas before they were wiping with clods of dirt. What semblance of civilization you see in those countries is because of British domination.

                  As for the former provinces of the Ottoman Empire, they were former provinces of the Ottoman Empire… their fate was a geopolitical outcome of the tragically criminal World War that had just taken place, not an outcome of the drive for empire.

                  1. “African labourers were in one of three categories: squatter, contract, or casual.[C] By the end of WWI, squatters had become well established on European farms and plantations in Kenya, with Kikuyu squatters comprising the majority of agricultural workers on settler plantations.[42] An unintended consequence of colonial rule,[42] the squatters were targeted from 1918 onwards by a series of Resident Native Labourers Ordinances?criticised by at least some MPs[54]?which progressively curtailed squatter rights and subordinated African farming to that of the settlers.[55] The Ordinance of 1939 finally eliminated squatters’ remaining tenancy rights, and permitted settlers to demand 270 days’ labour from any squatters on their land.[56] and, after WWII, the situation for squatters deteriorated rapidly, a situation the squatters resisted fiercely.[57]”

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..categories

                    What part of stripping the people of Kenya of their land and reducing them to serfdom suggests that English culture by way of British Imperialism improved the people of Kenya’s situation?

                    You’re talking out of your ass.

                    1. What sort of property system and agriculture existed in Sub-Saharan Africa in to any great extent prior to European colonialism? With the exception of Arabic colonies to the East, the Sub-Saharan were hunter gatherers almost exclusively and most hadn’t yet reached Bronze Age metallurgy. The first two story building in sub-Saharan Africa was built by European missionaries. These societies had nothing except a land of unappropriated resources.

                      I never said brute force and seizing property were a good thing. I said the principles of English liberty and basic cultural imports from Europe were to the colonized peoples’ benefit.

                      You’re pretty quick to smugness for someone who doesn’t know property rights and agriculture were not innovations of the sub-Saharan African societies which now depend on them.

                    2. “What sort of property system and agriculture existed in Sub-Saharan Africa in to any great extent prior to European colonialism?”

                      The “squatters” they’re referring to were the people who owned the land–before the British came and stole it out from under them.

                      There are all sorts of different ways people own land–and there’s nothing worse for that ownership system than to come in and steal it and turn the original owners into serfs.

                      If the Kenyans didn’t have any sense of ownership (they do), it would be because the British destroyed it. The British owned that land in the same way a car thief owns the last car he jacked.

                      Once you destroy that legitimate sense of ownership, like the British did, it doesn’t come back automatically. Look at the Soviet Union. The British did to land ownership in Kenya what the Soviets did to land ownership in Russia.

                      Who’s the legitimate owner now? If you can’t answer that question, then that’s the problem. …not the culture.

                      British Imperialism was central planning, and listening to someone defend it in the name of libertarianism makes me want to puke.

                    3. The “squatters” they’re referring to were the people who owned the land–before the British came and stole it out from under them.

                      Did they own it? There were some claims of tribal sovereignty and common ownership among them, but not much in the way “Mr. Chieftan owns this or that mountain’s mineral rights”, it was a state of nature beyond very rudimentary social institutions. But that’s all irrelevant because I didn’t say the British were “entitled to take their land”. I said those societies benefited from certain byproducts of European colonialism.

                      If you can’t answer that question, then that’s the problem. …not the culture.

                      The culture aspect is why they were pre-Bronze Age before European arrival. I didn’t make a statement about the ethics of land grabs. Quit arguing points I didn’t make.

                    4. British Imperialism was central planning, and listening to someone defend it in the name of libertarianism makes me want to puke.

                      Ughhhh. I’m defending English liberty in the name of libertarianism. You are just inventing one reason after another to misrepresent what I said. This is what one can expect every time they engage in debate with you.

                    5. “I said the principles of English liberty and basic cultural imports from Europe were to the colonized peoples’ benefit.”

                      Where?

                      Things didn’t really get rockin’ around here until we kicked their blue-blooded asses out.

                      To whatever extent British culture helped people, it was to the extent that it was libertarian. To whatever extent they hurt people, it was to the extent they were not libertarian.

                      …just like everybody else.

                    6. Where?

                      All up the thread. I’m not going to read for you even though you certainly don’t trouble yourself to read much of what you’re arguing against.

                      To whatever extent British culture helped people, it was to the extent that it was libertarian. To whatever extent they hurt people, it was to the extent they were not libertarian.

                      Which is my entire point. How much does this dead horse need to be beaten? British colonies came away with stronger institutions to preserve the principles of liberty than in any other colonial power’s former empire.

                      Those same institutions were not present in post-Spanish colonies nor in the host societies prior to their European contact.

        3. Labor is a resource and having more of a resource is better.

          Unproductive labor is a huge liability and drain.

          1. Yes, and that’s true regardless of whether there’s an epidemic.

            And what’s the best way to unlock the productivity of all that labor?

            Free trade and capitalism, naturally.

            I guess that goes to show how shitty statism can be–that it transforms a productive resource like labor into a liability. Doesn’t have to be that way.

    2. That sounds nice but people in places like Haiti are not poor just because of trade barriers. They are poor mostly because of their own governments. Unless you plan to start invading and replacing those governments, there isn’t much you can do to make them wealthy enough to make a difference here.

      1. Yeah, I didn’t say trade with Hati was necessarily the ultimate solution to all of their problems. I said it was necessarily a part of the problem and should be addressed.

        Isn’t China a whole lot less worried about starvation than they used to be? To what extent is that because of their open and democratic government?

        To what extent is their lowering fear of famine a result of them being a much wealthier nation than they used to be?

      2. I beg to differ John. The people in Haiti have the government that they do, and are poor, because of their culture. Replace their government today with a shiny new one and nothing will change. Pour a trillion dollars into the economy there and in a year it will be just like it is today.

        Haiti is the way it is because it is full of Haitians.

        1. I’m curious as to what aspects of Haitian culture you feel are detrimental?

          1. I don’t detect a strong cultural respect for the rule of law and the rights of others. I’m no expert on Haitian culture, but it’s fair to say that whatever western societies have that made them peaceful and prosperous, societies like that in Haiti don’t have it.

            You don’t literally think that all cultures are equal in their promotion of life, liberty and property, do you?

            1. I’m no expert on Haitian culture

              Me too, that’s why I asked.

              You don’t literally think that all cultures are equal in their promotion of life, liberty and property, do you?

              I absolutely do not. That’s why I asked.

              1. A buddy of mine was a peacekeeper there. He said anytime there was a traffic accident and a fatality, if no one could testify that they had seen the devil cause the accident, then the crowd would behead the driver of the car that caused the accident long before the cops could get there.

                He told me hundreds of stories like that. I traded with ones from Bolivia, also a primitive, backward place. And chronically impoverished.

                I don’t think I am giving you a very exact answer.

                I would say that magical thinking and tribalism are not a recipe for success.

                1. I’ve only met one Haitian in my life, so far. But, from what you describe it sounds like they are collectivist and superstitious. (I’m guessing Voodoo has something to do with that?).

                  He said anytime there was a traffic accident and a fatality, if no one could testify that they had seen the devil cause the accident, then the crowd would behead the driver of the car that caused the accident long before the cops could get there

                  Sounds like Pakistan/India.

                2. I don’t think it’s unrealated that in the hotbed of the ebola epidemic, cultural tradition dictates that the family wash the recently deceased in filthy river-water and then the whole family proceeds to throw themselves upon the body and kiss it. This is the same part of the world where parents pay non-HIV infected men to rape their young daughters so that the HIV infected men won’t want to rape her as a cure to their disease. The list does indeed go on and on. It’s sickening.

                  For all of people’s bitching about colonialism, these people alive today could have stood to benefit from their ancestors having endured a few more centuries of European rule.

          2. Extreme ignorance and backwardness? Strong socialist mentality?

            The same cultural aspects that plague all the other chronically impoverished countries.

            1. Maybe extreme poverty causes ignorance, superstition, and a preference for socialism.

        2. There is a feedback loop between bad government and bad culture that free trade can break. You can have bad culture with great capitalism-that’s what Abu Dhabi is. It’s a mostly free-market city state in an awful Arab place.

          1. Yes, as Friedman said, “You can have capitalism without freedom, but you can’t have freedom without capitalism”

        3. Uh, quite simple…eh?

          Has nothing to do with this:
          “Fearing the influence of a society that had successfully fought and won against their enslavers, the United States and European powers refused to recognize Haiti, the second republic in the western hemisphere. In addition, the US maintained an arms and goods embargo against the country during the years of its own conflict with Great Britain. France demanded a high payment for compensation to slaveholders who lost their property, and Haiti was saddled with unmanageable debt for decades.[19] It became one of the poorest countries in the Americas”

          Or with the stripping of much of the land to grow sugar cane for European tastes?

          Or because the original Indians were 100% killed off?

          Sure, if we moved the Jews there, along with their trillions in net worth, worldwide connections and resources, etc. the place would likely bloom.

          But the current construct of Haiti is simply what the great powers made it into – actively, in most cases, passively in others.

          1. Anyone else find it hilarious how fucktard can’t connect the dots?

            Such mental disconnect.

          2. Thanks, ass, for demonstrating how Government fucks entire nations of people over for (literally) no reason. Evidently you just copy/pasted without reading the evidence right in fucking front of you, goddamned halfwit.

            1. Hey, I certainly don’t support the economic boycotts of Cuba, etc…..hurting people doesn’t help our cause.

              My ancestors had nothing to do with that crap.

      3. Trade is the flow of goods, services, and ideas. A nominally liberal government restricting its citizens from trading with citizens of countries with illiberal governments is asinine, because it reinforces illiberalism in both places.

        Yes, Haitians like all people have to take ownership of their own lives, and are not “owed” the trade of others, but they will not likely learn the lesson of self-ownership when the world is preaching collective ownership.

      4. Haiti is kept poor by all the “help” from rich countries, NGOs, the UN, etc.

        1. By giving away free food and shelter, etc. they drive local businesses under. Farms are abandoned and farmers move into the city and live in slums.

      5. I’m not so sure invading and replacing bad governments is a good idea. See, as example, Afghanistan and Iraq. Also to Lybia and Egypt. Question is, why did Germany and Japan turn out better? Is there any reason to believe 50 years from now, Afghanistan and Iraq will bustling metropolises of relative freedom and enterprise?

    3. I would argue that while wealth is at the core, one must ask what, exactly does wealth do to prevent these pandemics? I would argue that the wealth allows us to have a central authority whose job it is to study and shut down the Broad Street Pump, and do it competently.

      1. Re: Paul,

        I would argue that while wealth is at the core, one must ask what, exactly does wealth do to prevent these pandemics?

        Take a look at your toilet and imagine if you had to go “outside” to take a dump. Then think about not having toilet paper to wipe your ass crack, or clean running water to wash up.

        Satisfied?

        1. Think about a sewer system.

        2. “Satisfied?”

          You left out the best details about the parasites and pathogens that flourish when you shit on the ground on a regular basis, and all that shit washing into the creek…the river…seeping into the wells…..

      2. Part of it is infrastructure. When power and water goes dark in Hati, there aren’t a whole lot of options. When they same thing happens in the New Orleans, that infrastructure we had to begin with can be repaired pretty quick.

        You have no sewer, water, or electricity in the U.S. for more than a week, and people here would start getting sick, too. You can’t drink water from the tap in Africa or Hati.

        The other part is the aftermath. People in the U.S. can afford to leave a disaster area–and when they get to wherever they’re going, it isn’t a camp in the wilderness somewhere without running water. They can also afford medical treatment.

        Anyway, the wealthier you are, the better you’re likely to do after a natural disaster and the diseases that follow. …even the progressive type environmentalists think so.

        http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf

        They’re likely to complain out of one side of their mouths that pandemics are elitist because they hit the poor the worst–but they don’t seem to take that lesson to heart!

        1. I think you’re agreeing with me, that you’re pointing out the things that wealth buys you? And in particular, what aggregate wealth buys you?

          If you were super wealthy and you moved into one of these Ebola infected areas in Africa, would you feel safe? Point being, what if despite your wealth, the things you mentioned simply weren’t available, despite your wealth?

          1. If you were super wealthy and you moved into one of these Ebola infected areas in Africa, would you feel safe? Point being, what if despite your wealth, the things you mentioned simply weren’t available, despite your wealth?

            Wealth is not simply what’s in the bank account or investment protfolio. Wealth is also bestowed by the society, that is, the wealth of other people. My property value goes up when two mansions get built on either side of my shitty house.

            Bill Gates is plenty wealthy in California. Some might say he’d be even wealthier in Somalia because his money would hypothetically “buy more”. But it only buys more of certain things and less of other things. He does not benefit enough from Somalia’s cheap labor to offset how much he no longer benefits from living in a society where people respect property rights or how much he benefited by not suffering roving bands of machete wielding lunatics as his neighbors. If Bill moved he and his wealth to Somalia, I think Somalia would be decidedly wealthier and Bill would be decidedly less wealthy.

          2. Yeah, we’re agreeing on a lot.

            As a commercial real estate developer, I’m familiar with all the infrastructure people pay for–but don’t realize they’re paying for.

            When you go to insure your house against fire, it’s often a revelation for people–how come I only have to insure my house for a fraction of what I paid for it?

            Part of what you’re paying for when you buy a house is the location–some locations are in more demand than others. But the rest of it is about the infrastructure…

            Your property taxes generally aren’t going to pay for water lines, storm drains, sewer, electricity, streets, etc. You paid for those things when you bought your house. The developer put all those things in, and you compensated the developer for them in the price of your house. (Property taxes generally just go to maintain some of those things).

            When you sell your house, the buyer is compensating you for the value of all that infrastructure, too.

            People in Hati and Central Africa can’t afford to buy that kind of infrastructure for themselves. If that’s a big part of the reason why they suffer, someone should say so.

            1. People in Hati and Central Africa can’t afford to buy that kind of infrastructure for themselves. If that’s a big part of the reason why they suffer, someone should say so.

              They can’t just not afford to buy that kind of sdtuff, but when westerner build it for them, they let it fall into disrepair or pick apart the structure for scrap. It’s not just tangible wealth they lack, but they lack the intellectual wealth necessary to fathom why a sewer system is worth the effort. We take that we take for granted in the west. I mean we think the uneducated here are dumbshits, but our dumbshits are rocket scientists compared to 3rd world dumbshits.

              1. “They can’t just not afford to buy that kind of sdtuff, but when westerner build it for them, they let it fall into disrepair or pick apart the structure for scrap.”

                Do you have a link for that?

                There are a lot of problems everywhere when the ownership of something is muddled.

                There certainly isn’t anything about being hostile to clean water that’s inherently Haitian.

                1. Look up how the Afghan Army sold a couple billion of dollars worth of planes for scrap metal.

                  1. Again, when ownership is muddled, you get all sorts of problems.

                    1. But it goes to his point. It is a culture issue, not a material goods issue.

                      If you have a culture that does not respect ownership, or individual liberty, they’re not going to respect the things that ownership and individual liberty created.

                      I think we need to use free speech to try and change minds about culture. This respect for anything different, moral relativism that is mostly perpetrated by progressives, is probably the greatest single barrier to progress in much of the rest of the world. Free Trade can help, sure, but Free Trade and Free Speech help more.

                      Giving things to people that don’t have it and wouldn’t know what to do with it anyway doesn’t help much if at all.

                    2. “If you have a culture that does not respect ownership…”

                      You’re missing the point.

                      It isn’t about a culture that doesn’t respect ownership. It’s about those planes not really being owned by anybody.

                      The same things happen here in the United States when nobody clearly owns things. And the same kinds of things happen in every culture when ownership is unclear.

                      Have you heard of the Tragedy of the Commons?

                      It’s been used by environmentalists as an attack on capitalism, but the nature of the problem is that the ownership of the resource in question is muddled.

                      If individuals can sell government airplanes for scrap that don’t really belong to them (or anybody else), then why wouldn’t they do that?

                      Actually, if you’re interested, I’d like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge–I’m in a tight spot and I’ll settle for anything.

                2. No. Examples abound. Some billionaire was recently promoting his water in Africa charity or some such thing. He was digging wells and water purification systems in these remote villages. A year or so later they checked back in with these villages and found out that no one knew how to operate the equipment or how to fix it when it broke, nor could they find the parts to fix it when they knew.

                  1. “A year or so later they checked back in with these villages and found out that no one knew how to operate the equipment or how to fix it when it broke, nor could they find the parts to fix it when they knew.”

                    And you think that’s culture related?!

                    1. And you think that’s culture related?!

                      When did I say that? They lack the intellectual capital necessary to maintain these systems. That’s indisputable. Their culture’s shortcomings are but one reason for that capital deficiency though. Not all cultures are suited to respect life, liberty and property.

        2. Consider the famous case of the Broad Street pump. Wealthy people were getting sick. Their wealth wasn’t a bulwark against cholera. Because the aggregate wealth didn’t get them the things that prevented cholera.

          1. Consider the famous case of the Broad Street pump. Wealthy people were getting sick. Their wealth wasn’t a bulwark against cholera. Because the aggregate wealth didn’t get them the things that prevented cholera.

            How much reliance did they place on public services to protect them?

            1. At the time I believe it was none. The Broad Street Pump situation was basically where the idea that a central authority could protect people was born.

              In fact, more people died from Cholera because the pump was turned back on, because the people the pump served didn’t believe that anyone had the authority to turn it off.

              1. In fact, more people died from Cholera because the pump was turned back on, because the people the pump served didn’t believe that anyone had the authority to turn it off.

                Sounds like the tragedy of commons. No one, no association of shareholders or anything apparently, had the authority to shut it off. If I’m understanding the story right.

          2. If they could not know that contamination of the water supply caused cholera, or that the pump in question was contaminated, then they were not wealthy. They might have been rich, but as you can see, all that amounted to diddly squat if they could do nothing about cholera. It was John Snow who added wealth to the world, not the rich men who lived around the pump.

            1. I think I see what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree. However, John Snow’s ideas had to be put into practice in the form of those annoying building codes which force you to separate your water line from your sewer line by grade and distance, which raises the price of your home.

              1. The municipality can require all it wants, it takes people paying for it to make it happen.

                Also, that only proves sufficiency, not necessity.

              2. *Goes to doctor vomiting and shitting his brains out*

                *Doctor fixes him*

                *Doctor says, “Hey bro, you might want to separate your shit water from your drinking water”

                *Separates drinking water from shit water, tells friends if they do not want to vomit and shit their brains out, they should probably do the same*

                *Starts business fixing drinking water cross contamination*

                *Educates public on dangers, because this gives him more business*

                *Profit*

        3. “When they same thing happens in the New Orleans, that infrastructure we had to begin with can be repaired pretty quick.”

          Which must be why they lost 30% of their population since 2000…

          1. Which must be why they lost 30% of their population since 2000…

            And that population went where? Somewhere else in the US? Also, partially explained later on in his post?

            His point was about infrastructure in Haiti. Your point was… well you don’t have one.

      3. I think you are making the classic mistake of conflating money and wealth.

        The central authority shutting down the pump is not a sign of wealth; it is a sign of the failure of that same authority to prevent contamination of its wells.

        The question of wealth comes into play with regard to whether or not anyone had the ability to detect the contamination in the first place. If not, then there is nothing anyone, not even the vaunted central authority, could have done. If so, then the central authority stood in the way of it, in some form or another.

        The difference between the two scenarios is wealth.

        1. I think you are making the classic mistake of conflating money and wealth.

          I’m actually not. I was actually expanding on OM’s point by postulating what exactly it is that wealth buys you. And when I say “buy”, I’m talking about the indirect effects of wealth.

          It takes wealth for society to say, “Ok, we just figured out why people are dying of cholera, and it’s because the water pumps were being cross-contaminated with sewage, here’s what it’s going to cost society to make sure that never happens again”.

          1. It takes wealth for society to say, “Ok, we just figured out why people are dying of cholera, and it’s because the water pumps were being cross-contaminated with sewage, here’s what it’s going to cost society to make sure that never happens again”.

            “Society” didn’t say or do anything. A man figured out the pump was likely contaminated, and after removing the handle for the pump, drastically reduced the incidence of cholera. People later learned the implications and applied them. John Snow created the wealth, and others spread it around.

            1. But it’s the how they ‘spread it around’ that I’m talking about.

              1. Are you arguing that there is only one way to spread wealth, and that way is by force? That is farcical. For one thing, in Snow’s one time people were fleeing the vicinity of the pump. That was sufficient in its own way as an application of the knowledge. Even so, pursuading one city council to close one pump is not much of a “spreading”. Other people had to learn the lesson and apply it in some way; municipal building codes are but one application of the knowledge.

                How does a rural home with a well and a septic tank control its cholera potential without a municipal government to force them to do it right?

                1. Paul,

                  I am disappoint.

                  That is all.

    4. Epidemics are the same thing. There are so many different factors that go into making an epidemic spread, but they’re all a function of how wealthy the population is.

      They have more wealth to spend on preventative and treatment measures. The degree to which people would be wealthier from not financially supporting the bureaucracy would multiply the degree to which they were able to protect against whatever that bureaucracy is supposedly protecting us from.

      The libertarian solution to these problems should have at least something to say about wealth generation.

      And a shit ton less support for tax funded Top Men strategies.

    5. Basic hygiene is what keeps r less than 1. That doesn’t require “wealth.”

      1. It’s not like recent college graduates go to the witch doctor, because no wealth. But later, having acquired the wealth, they go to real doctors.

        1. It’s not like recent college graduates go to the witch doctor, because no wealth.

          If you want to make the argument that superstitious ignorance leads to the spread of disease, then I’ll grant your premise is valid. However, look at China. Even after decades of economic development, you still have the vast majority of the population still believing in traditional Chinese medicine; yet, despite believing eating a soup made of tiger testicles or some shit in combination with large population densities, disease is not something China worries about like a 3rd World country. I’d chalk that up to “a rising tide raises all boats” effect of China’s overall economic growth.

      2. Re: Siddi Finch v2.01,

        Basic hygiene is what keeps r less than 1. That doesn’t require “wealth.”

        Yeah, it is SO easy to keep yourself clean without running water or soap.

        Have you ever gone camping? Have you SMELLED the inside of a tent after only one night of camping out?

        It’s incredible to learn how much people take for granted all those miracles like running water or a toilet to then argue that they don’t represent Wealth. Fuck you.

        1. Sure, it takes vast fortunes to incinerate the dead.

          1. Re: Sidd Finch v2.01,

            Sure, it takes vast fortunes to incinerate the dead.

            It doesn’t, and what does that have to do with hygiene?

            1. RetardedMexican:

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..s-remains/

              “When the person has just died, that is when the body is most contagious,” World Health Organization spokesman Tarik Jasarevic told The Post in August. “It’s when the virus is overtaking the whole body.”

              Complicating that is the fact that late-stage Ebola infections can force blood, vomit and diarrhea from the body; those same fluids can pass the disease from person to person.

              1. Re: Sidd Finch v2.01,

                What does that have to do with BASIC HYGIENE? Why are you running in circles?

                It is one thing to say that you don’t need wealth to have basic hygiene, it is ANOTHER to say that basic hygiene means burning bodies up.

                1. Basic hygiene means, among other things, not handling diseased bodies. This isn’t some recent medical breakthrough.

                  1. 1. Speak in vague terms
                    2. When called, claim you meant the other thing
                    3. Ignore other parts of the thread where the other thing has been addressed.
                    4. ???
                    5. Profit!

                  2. Just out of curiosity, what are people supposed to do with dead bodies and contaminated dwellings, when there’s no special hazmat team to come in and clean things up?

              2. That’s not addressing the argument. It’s a fun fact about ebola. Proper hygiene would have prevented the infectious death described.

                1. a fun fact about ebola

                  WTF?

                  Proper hygiene would have prevented the infectious death described.

                  I said basic hygiene keeps r less than 1, not zero.

                  1. I’ll add this to the list of strawman rebuttals that you present me.

      3. Basic hygiene is what keeps r less than 1. That doesn’t require “wealth.”

        Lolwut? Suppose we leave your statement undisputed. The tools for basic hygiene would obviously be rather valuable to those without. So since value and, by extension, wealth are subjective yes, yes it does require wealth.

        1. If having some matches, and gas, and bleach makes a people wealthy, then West Africa is wealthy. That seems a pretty unusual definition of wealthy, but … Oh Dave, I get it now!

          1. If having some matches, and gas, and bleach makes a people wealthy, then West Africa is wealthy.

            Wealth is not the just things, but also knowing how and when to use them. By your idiosyncratic defintion, we have been equally wealthy for all of history, since nothing we have now has not been there all along.

          2. then West Africa is wealthy

            You said wealth, not wealthy genius. Get your terms right.

            1. That comment was a response to another comment. If you’d like to read my non-conversational thoughts, subscribe to my newsletter.

              1. That comment was a response to another comment

                Which was talking about wealth and wealthy in the, wait for it…., same context that I was.

                Ignorant you, mixed the terms up.

                This is some D- trolling.

                1. They’re only wealthy if they know how to sterilize water!!

                  What. The. Fuck.

          3. having some matches, and gas, and bleach

            Also, not only is wealth subjective, it’s also relative. So compared to those without, the person with hygiene products is indeed wealthy.

            Basic econ, how does it work?

            1. Who doesn’t have bleach and gas?

              1. We were talking about basic hygiene and you mentioned those, so uh, I dunno man, you tell me.

              2. Ever been outside the US? I would say that about half the people on the planet don’t have bleach and gas.

                1. All you need is a fucking fire and an animal skull, for christsakes.

                  I think humanity figured this out over 200k years ago.

      4. Your reference to basic hygiene, again, is missing the point…

        You can’t get clean water out of a faucet in your house in much of the world.

        In Mexico, when I lived there, they have one shopping mall for the wealthy. It has all the luxury department stores you’d expect–but you don’t have to look for the restrooms. You can smell where they are from halfway across the mall.

        The reason is becasue in Mexico, the plumbing generally can’t handle tissue paper. So people don’t flush it. They put a wastebasket next to the toilet, and after you wipe, you throw the tissue in there.

        Basic hygiene is a function of wealth. Access to potable water out of your faucets at home is a function of wealth. Being able to flush toilet paper is a function of wealth.

        Do you know why they called that part of Kingston “Trenchtown” that Bob Marley references? It’s because there was an open trench that ran through it they used for sewage.

        Here, watch this:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GZlJGERbvE

        The rest of the world is not like America. Michelle Obama thinks we have a problem because America’s poor are too fat! We live in an absurd paradise.

        1. My comment was specific to Ebola. I should’ve made that clear.

        2. So what you’re saying is that there is a huge untapped market in Mexico for clean water, bidets or decent plumbing?

          What if they value leisure time over fixing their plumbing issues. If they get that time, aren’t they just as wealthy as we are?

          1. Again, if you want to change their culture through freedom of speech, go for it.

            Your entire argument seems to be very “You didn’t build that”-esque.

            Yeah, we have it better, but because we value those things that make it better.

            If you want them to value those things, you need to change their culture, not just give them clean water and bidets.

          2. The market for that is gonna be screaming, but one of the things I learned living in Southern Mexico/Central America?

            Bottled water isn’t a luxury item.

            In Merida, they had guys who rode around on carts pulled by mules selling bottled water off the back of them. He’s got his own music that he plays so people know he’s coming. He’s like the ice-cream man!

            I suspect most of the poor people in the world drink bottled water. Being able to drink water out of a faucet is an unbelievable luxury. Sanitation is pretty amazing, too. People come by your house and pick up your garbage, really?!

            The rest of the world isn’t like the U.S., and it isn’t because of our culture. It’s because we’re filthy rich.

  15. What is the Government’s Proper Role in Fighting Ebola in a Libertarian World?

    What government?

    Ok, jokes aside – really, what government?

    What people do in times of an epidemic is what they have done traditionally in places like Africa: self-quarantine.

  16. 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.

    What’s that? You mean libertarians aren’t just a bunch of one dimensional Rand-worshipping, poor hating, Koch sucking strawmen? The hell you say?!

  17. I am not even going to rtfa before commenting.

    “Thomas R. Frieden is the Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). He served as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene from 2002?2009.”

    Thats right. This fuckstick was Bloomberg’s health nazi, the ‘no one can drink more than 16oz of soda’ guy. He doesn’t know about or give a shit about communicable diseases, he cares about controlling people’s behavior.

    Another look into the mind of a fascist: Dr. Thomas R. Frieden claims that only a breach in protocol will result in ebola infection. Yet, the nurse and her co-workers followed said protocol and still contracted the disease. His answer is that there must have been a breach, we know this because someone was infected.

    That is right folks, Ebola may be getting loose in America and Obama sees fit to put Trofim Lysenko in charge of the CDC. Top.Fuckin.Men.

    Shikha, the answer to your question is NONE.

    1. Shikha, the answer to your question is NONE.

      Not MOAR OPEN BORDERZ???

    2. Ebola is still not a threat to America.

      1. Hahahaha….that’s insane. The Spanish Influenza killed 50 to 100 million people around the globe. The Black Death killed an estimated 75 to 200 million people, and a full one-third of the population of Europe. These pandemics occurred at a time when the Earth’s population was a fraction of what it is now.

        There’s a tipping point: A case here or there isn’t a problem; but when you get a few hundred here or there, and the entire health-care system is quarantined, and the people who drive ambulances and make soap and bleach and Lysol stop going to work, it cascades into a full-blown pandemic. All the infrastructure and the best health care in the world doesn’t mean shit when the people who make shit happen stay home. Unless US citizenship confers some special immunity to ebola, we’re just as much at risk as any other country, especially if we’re willing to let people from infected countries cross our borders.

      2. But heaven forfend we suffer the merest hint of appearing to be racist rather than take common-sense measures to limit its spread. Better to risk a pandemic or people might say mean things about us.

    3. “Yet, the nurse and her co-workers followed said protocol and still contracted the disease. ”

      1. We don’t know that they followed the protocol – we KNOW they didn’t in the ER, etc.

      2. We don’t know about any co-workers…

  18. Newsweek interviewed a bunch of libertarians, including moi,

    Ugh. I bet she doesn’t even have diseases.

  19. my co-worker’s sister-in-law makes $64 /hr on the computer . She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her pay check was $15484 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not find out more……………..

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  20. What is the Government’s Proper Role in Fighting Ebola in a Libertarian World?

    Killing every single person who’s infected, of course.

    Sometimes, the few have to sacrifice for the many. Proggies tell me that all the time.

    1. proggies? so your still in grade school?

      1. Puts him a few grades above you, apparently.

      2. proggies? so your still in grade school?

        *you’re

        Grade school huh?

        1. Why can’t there be a like button?

  21. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  22. Writing Jobs Available. Work From Your Home!

    –? Earn Up To $30 Per Blog Post

    –? Earn Up To $50 Per Article

    –? Earn Up To $250 Per Story

    URGENT! Please visit: http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  23. wish there was a libertarian world, then they could all move there

    1. There’s plenty of communist worlds, why not move there?

      1. “There’s plenty of communist worlds, why not move there?”

        Actually’ Libertarians and their free market friends DO rate Commie China, in the form of Hong Kong, very high on their lists of paradise.

        HK is #1…..a communist place!

        Singapore is #2!
        “The dominance of the PAP, coupled with a low level of press freedom and suppressed civil liberties and political rights, has led to Singapore being classified as a semi-authoritarian regime”

        You could not make this stuff up…Libertarians are Authoritarians…period.

        1. Commie China, in the form of Hong Kong

          You’re as lazy as you are mendacious.

          An Association Fallacy is not an argument. The rest of your comment is more of the same and invalidated.

        2. Why would I want to live in a high-density Calhoun experiment?

  24. It’s always fun when the mainstream media links here.

  25. To your garden-variety Progressive statist, anything less than totalitarianism looks like anarchy. Anyone without a partisan axe to grind understands that libertarians don’t advocate the elimination of government, simply the limitation of government’s role to the protection of life and property, the mediator of last resort in dispute resolution, and coordinating things like national defense and “tragedy of the commons” type stuff. If there were an ebola epidemic (and, to be clear, there isn’t) a libertarian government would likely respond by assisting state and local governments and associations in a coordinated response. If victims decided to intentionally conceal their illness in order to infect others, which is a bizarre thought to say the least, such a government would indeed quarantine them by force if necessary, which would be fully in keeping with libertarian ideas.

    I suspect that for reasons of intellectual dishonesty that position gets conflated with that of anarchists, particularly anarcho-capitalists, another political philosophy that statists don’t understand but hate with all their black hearts.

  26. The biggest problem with government in situations like this is that it wants to spend billions of dollars preparing for anything and everything and when the time comes, the person “in charge” has a bigger interest in making sure his career is helped than the problem gets solved. If things get out of hand real fast it’s hard to get the bloated bureaucracy to move in the right direction and admit years of spending billions of dollars has done jack to fix the problem.

    I’m reminded of how on 9/11 all the air traffic controllers managed to get all the traffic down in under a couples hours. After that someone at the FAA suggested that they come up with elaborate plans for how to handle all sorts of situations that might come up in the future. Thankfully, someone stepped in and suggested that no grand plans be put into place because it might restrict the flexibility of the controllers to do whatever is necessary in the moment. The opposite thing is happening with the CDC and a big bloated bureaucracy instead of workers who are allowed to think on their feet.

    As far as CDC funding goes, they’ve got a lot of crap they can cut. I was in a doctor’s office a few years ago and on the TV they were playing all sorts of PSAs from the CDC. Did you know the CDC has a division in charge of house fires? When the hell did a house fire become a disease?

  27. Yeah as soon as your childlike minds can visualize a threat actually affecting you in a non-abstract, hemorrhaging-from-both-ends way, suddenly the only thing that can protect you is big government. The problem is not that libertarians don’t appreciate, from time to time, the utility of an institution that can mobilize people and resources on a large scale. It’s that you can’t wrap your minds around any threat to social order that is remotely outside of your perceived personal needs. Granted, ebola won’t likely affect any of you, but it is novel and plastered all over CNN–you always assume the status quo (with food safety regulations, traffic laws, and a million other things) are all gonna be there in libertopia, because you’re used to them. Seems as if your big problem with ebola is there hasn’t been a commercial interest dumping cash into a propaganda campaign to deny it exists.

    1. suddenly the only thing that can protect you is big government

      Que?

      can’t wrap your minds around any threat to social order that is remotely outside of your perceived personal needs

      Lol, looks who’s talking projecting, chief.

      you always assume the status quo .. are all gonna be there in libertopia

      Just as you assume they wouldn’t, what’s your point or are you just question begging?

      1. There are some things beyond the scope of the market mechanism, and they are not arbitrary but defined as social needs that aren’t necessarily well-addressed by profit motive. So, things like food safety standards, pollution mitigation, communicable diseases, universal education and healthcare, large-scale infrastructure, national defense, and some other things. If libertarians get to pick and choose then they are no different from anyone else–they favor mixed economies. Nobody’s a communist or an anarchist, we’re all just expressing degrees of socialism. And liberals like me get to criticize you both for your poorly thought-out preference of how much socialism we need, as well for your insistence that you’re living by some immutable principle that liberals are 100% hostile to.

        1. There are some things beyond the scope of the market mechanism

          Maybe, maybe not.

          and they are not arbitrary but defined as social needs that aren’t necessarily well-addressed by profit motive

          Except that you and I (and virtually every other political philosophy/ideology) disagree on what constitutes a need, so yes, it actually is arbitrary.

          food safety standards

          Ever hear of ISO/IEEE? Non-governmental standards bodies exist and tend to pop up where they are demanded/necessary.

          pollution mitigation

          Possibly, but the ancaps make a good case for private alternatives.

          communicable diseases

          Possibly, I guess that’s the point of the article, so I’ll leave it.

          universal education and healthcare

          No, government makes those worse.

          large-scale infrastructure

          Maybe, maybe not, but this also begs the question of what the alternatives would end up being.

          national defense

          Probably, but then again, in the US, this has lead to hegemony, oppression, and mass murder. So I would prefer a different way.

          See part 2…

        2. Underlying many libertarian type philosophies is that I don’t know what’s best and neither does the government. I don’t have to provide specific ideas/solutions for every little (or big) thing as private actors with specialized knowledge and market incentives will take care of that. I suppose government can utilize those with specialized knowledge, but the incentives are all wrong and as such we see massive waste and corruption.

          If libertarians get to pick and choose then they are no different from anyone else

          I’m sure that some are no different. But, it all depends on how their philosophy is premised. If you ask me I would say two things: first, that self ownership ought to be absolute and second, current culture won’t allow the first. To me it’s a philosophical ideal which requires concessions in the real world. So if you want to debate me, you (and possibly I) need to be clear about which realm we are speaking about.

          your insistence that you’re living by some immutable principle

          It’s impossible in the age of leviathan to live by that principle. See above.

          1. So we have several disagreements about whether the market or government is better at providing some social services. That’s a matter of data, and I suggest you browse some of it. Whether the market can provide any universal basic need is also not a matter of principle but evidence, and I’ve not seen it. It can provide food, but it can’t feed everybody. Same with whether government is inherently too corrupt to be trusted with anything, even if it in theory could do superior work–the question is do you really want government to work well? And what happens when people who agree with you get elected to office?

            So your excuse for conceding the necessity of government is that we don’t live in a utopia that would be defined by its ability to act as you want it to. But why should daydreams about fantasy worlds have any role to play in a serious political discussion? I don’t get it. If the realities of human existence won’t let you get there… you have a fundamental problem.

            The principle is “self-ownership ought to be absolute.” But I don’t know what that means. Does that mean property entitlements? Abortion is always OK, or always not OK? You want the phrase self-ownership to stand in for a litany of specific policy requirements–as you say, mitigated by reality, and thus favoring a mixed economy same as me.

            1. That’s a matter of data, and I suggest you browse some of it.

              I’m sure what you are vaguely referring to is in no way a post hoc fallacy. Also, there’s more than enough data to support my views.

              the market can provide any universal basic need

              Universally? Hmm, I don’t think there’s anything that could provide that (government included). Also, you don’t get to have laws/programs/regulations that stifle production and charity and simultaneously get to claim that the market fails.

              It can provide food

              Yes, and speaking of data, vastly better than the socialist experiments of the 20th century.

              but it can’t feed everybody.

              Maybe, maybe not, but it’s doing a better and better job as the world becomes more and more wealthy, thanks to capitalism/markets. Good luck feeding everyone in the world of 200 years ago (any government system of your choosing). You would seek to alter that trajectory?

              in theory

              I guess you’re allowed utopian daydreams then?

              the question is do you really want government to work well

              Red herring.

              If the realities of human existence won’t let you get there

              Good grief, no. Way to mis-characterize what I said. I said the current culture. Pop quiz, would gay marriage be legal now without the culture shifting?

              But I don’t know what that means.

              That’s obvious in my observation. For a New Libery by Rothbard, just chapter one.

              1. Self-ownership is not obvious and it’s not inevitably emergent of physical laws. You and Rothbard just want it to be–and then to stand in for a specific set of policy preferences. Of course, I don’t believe you can even talk about how society should be structured without acknowledging both the existence of and necessity of cooperative (including coercive) action. It’s not just a difficult semantic problem to advocate an individualistic politics, it’s self-contradictory. You can’t escape the fact that in order to have society ordered in the way you want it (no food inspections, yes property rights, yes/no abortion, whatever), you have to impose stuff on people who don’t want it. We’re not talking about anything that has to do with individuals. Only liberals (and occasionally libertarians) are doing that when they spearhead individual civil rights, except that’s in a social context as well. You don’t need individual rights outside of a society. If you lived on an island alone, you would be at liberty to do whatever you can (and you are a slave to nature for everything else).

                1. Self-ownership is not obvious and it’s not inevitably emergent of physical laws. You and Rothbard just want it to be–and then to stand in for a specific set of policy preferences.

                  Wow, are you really this dense? Every philosophy has to start somewhere, including yours. You can deny self-ownership all you want, but at the end of the day, if you want to violate someone’s self-ownership by, say, denying them the full fruits of their labor, I can point it out. Beyond the acceptance of self-ownership as an ideal, it’s pure logic.

                  You go from saying “I don’t know what that means” to pontificating on what it is that Rothbard and myself mean… You are comically nonsensical.

                  in order to have society ordered in the way you want it…you have to impose stuff on people who don’t want it.

                  After you educate yourself on self-ownership, you need to educate yourself on the NAP. I’m not an NAP purist, but it certainly fits here.

                  You don’t need individual rights outside of a society

                  You know, I was going to respond to this, but then I re-read your posts. I have decided that you are actually being purposely vague. I mean, what have you offered other than broad talking points? You suggest that I look at data, but offer nothing concrete. You talk about imposing stuff on people that don’t want it, but again offer nothing. Then you say this and talk about living on a island alone, and I realize that I’m not altogether sure what tortured point you are trying to make.

                  1. Seriously, don’t bother responding to mr. “LIBERTY IZ TYRRANNY!!!!!111” shithead Tony. It’s either a troll or the second dumbest human being alive; the dumbest being its mother for not having an abortion.

            2. Why is feeding everyone the standard by which it should be judged?

              The public, by way of consumer choices, has already chosen the standard. The market provides what consumers want, within the limitations of available resources. And it does so pretty close to optimally. Who are you to say that the choices of consumers are inferior to your preferred outcome – in which everyone gets fed?

    2. It seems to me that quarantining a person with a deadly disease is a minimally restrictive way of protecting the rights of other individuals who don’t want to be exposed to a risk of death without their consent.

      It also strikes me that this is a problem that humanity solved a long, long time ago, before the CDC even existed.

      And we didn’t solve it by taking out and shooting people who were sick, we solved it in the least restrictive and most respectful of the individual’s right’s way we could.

      1. It’s okay to tax me and employ government goons to quarantine people so that YOU don’t get sick. It is, after all, all about you.

        If some kid somewhere is starving, that’s his fucking problem.

        1. Fair enough. I’m willing to pay goons MYSELF to keep you and your deadly disease in your house. Because that IS my problem.

  28. It’s pretty hard to take people who call themselves libertarian seriously if they keep making arguments that government does indeed have a role in the daily lives of its citizens in response to the crisis de jour. I’m a libertarian socialist and make the argument that government should and can have a role in promoting the general welfare and that it should be paid for by taxes on the rich. So this dilemma isn’t my problem. If government is indeed legitimized by the presence of a disease that has infected 2 people, why shouldn’t government be involved in things like ameliorating poverty or cleaning up pollution?

    1. It’s pretty hard to take people who call themselves libertarian seriously

      followed by:

      I’m a libertarian socialist

      Uh…. so apparently there are different kinds of libertarians? You don’t say.

      Might want to be a little more specific in your first phrase.

      1. “Uh…. so apparently there are different kinds of libertarians? You don’t say”

        More than that!

        Rand Paul libertarians
        Ron Paul libertarians
        Kochsucking Libertarians
        Fiction Writer Libertarians

        I’ve heard many “libertarians” here tell me the other libertarians aren’t. One can only imagine a Congress of Libertarians. They’d be debating whether whether meant whether instead of working for our common good.

        1. They’d be debating whether whether meant whether instead of working for our common good.

          Sounds like an improvement. Lol, common good.

    2. I’m a libertarian socialist

      Oh, so basically you want free shit.

      There’s a far more accurate term for that than your made-up bullshit. It’s called a “progressive,” and Obama is eir Savior.

      1. It’s an oxymoron, too, since socialism leads inevitably to control. Costs spiral out of control, and the tool in the socialists’ toolbox is coercion backed by violence.

        1. the only tool

          Once upon a time I could proofread…

    3. “t’s pretty hard to take people who call themselves libertarian seriously”

      A Libertarian is a person who, after they win 100 million in a lottery, desires to freeze the society at that very moment and tell everyone to just “build that yourselves” from that day on.

      1. A leftist is a person who, after they win 100 bucks in a lottery (since that’s a decent amount of wealth in their utopia), desires to make everyone else pay to have stuff built through the crony company that he sets up with his winnings.

    4. Why is it impossible to recognize that there are some small number of things the libertarians do think government has a role in, and that maybe this is one of those things? Walking around with a deadly communicable disease exposes people to a serious risk without their consent. It’s totally in keeping with core libertarian principles to say that should not be allowed.

      It’s like some people think that because libertarians say government shouldn’t stop people from smoking weed, that libertarians think government shouldn’t stop them from eating babies either.
      Are you incapable of understanding that libertarianism doesn’t simply mean “do whatever you want”? Do you not get that the philosophy is derived from more fundamental principles and that what you are and are not permitted to do extends from those principles? Are you incapable of reasoning from first principles yourself?

      Why is it that you can’t see the difference between stopping people from spreading disease and forcing them to solve non-communicable problems like “poverty”?

    5. It’s pretty hard to take people who call themselves libertarian seriously if they keep making arguments that government does indeed have a role in the daily lives of its citizens in response to the crisis de jour

      Beat that strawman! Beat it good!

  29. my co-worker’s mother-in-law makes $84 /hr on the internet . She has been without work for eight months but last month her paycheck was $21951 just working on the internet for a few hours. check out the post right here….
    ??????? http://www.paygazette.com

  30. my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $70 /hour on the computer . She has been out of work for eight months but last month her income was $13415 just working on the computer for a few hours. see this………….

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  31. my friend’s sister makes $83 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired for ten months but last month her payment was $12435 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    Find Out More. ???????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.