Ebola and a Just Society

Ebola is a really good topic for a blogger.  It has all the elements to garner the attention of readers.  It has “crisis” written all over it.  You can even throw in “panic” and “pandemic”.

When the crisis and panic hits, the statists (which is almost everyone) call the state to action.  “I should be protected.”  “My safety and security are at stake.”  You hear all these claims and more.  The claims are not without merit.  But the underlying demand is that the state manage and administer this protection and if the rights of others “need” to be violated, so be it.

The state is simply not capable of ensuring your safety.  The state is the institution which has in fact put you in harm’s way.  Since the ebola story is continually developing, let’s use the IS, ISIS, or ISIL conflict as an example.  The US government has been meddling in the affairs of the middle east for a long time.  What we are witnessing is blowback (see Ron Paul).  What agency is responsible for gaining the attention of these forces?  The US government.  The state has put the security of the citizenry at risk.

But this society is focused on the moment and possibly history as far back as yesterday.  There is little comprehensive thought. Philosophically sound foundations do not matter to this society and are roundly rejected as too philosophical and impractical.  It is no matter to violate the rights of others (just not mine) to handle the task at hand.

Most call for an immediate end to travel between ebola affected areas of western Africa and the US.  They also call for a mandatory quarantine for those US citizens returning from the same areas.  The violation of these peoples’ rights is of no consequence.  It is for the “greater good” and to protect “the public health”.  But who determines such things?

Besides, the state is not capable of protecting your health.  The possibility of association with others who have come in contact with ebola cannot be completely cut off.  To believe so is to create a false sense of security.  How has the TSA done with your air transit security?  How does the DMV handle customer service?  Most discount these shortfalls as mere glitches.  And the lack of the incentive is of no matter to the public.

A detective attempts to determine “who done it” by placing all potential perpetrators on a list – those that had access, motive and means.  Suspects are eliminated one-by-one until there is one left.  In the case of the ebola crisis, there has been the accusation that the US government is the underlying cause (see http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/paul-craig-roberts/the-czar-and-his-troops/ and others).  Information such as this clearly places the state on the list of suspects.

In this society, but also in a just society, the only way to ensure your safety is to do so yourself.  No one else can be as vigilant or as dedicated to your personal safety, security and health.  There is no other way.  Certainly, no highly bureaucratic agency can align its operation with each individual’s unique needs and concerns.  To believe so is merely a fallacy.  You are inexorably responsible for your own safety and security.  You can hire the help you need.  You can certainly hire the care, protection and attention you desire.  You can also fire any agency directly who you deem is not performing up to the task.  There is no upside to creating a monopoly to do this.  Violating others rights to gain the security you seek does not achieve the stated goal.  And pursuing the goal is certainly no excuse to violate another’s rights.



Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “Ebola and a Just Society

  1. I was a little put off by Reason Magazine’s so-called “What Is the Libertarian Response to Ebola?” Basically, all 4 views supported the government’s forced Quarantine under the right circumstances.


    • I have not seen this article by reason.com. I will check it out and sure appreciate your time to read my post as well as to provide a reference to your position. Thank you! And keep your blog going! I like to read it.

    • I checked out the 4 views and I agree with your assessment. I see reason.com as a statist view. I have seen Nick Gillespie (editor in chief of reason.com) numerous times in television interviews. He presents a weak and misguided case for freedom. And that is being kind. In my view, Mr. Gillespie provides an incoherent case and therefore provides a disservice to the effort to advance society to freedom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s