Fighting Freedom with Ebola

[derspiess]

Is the Ebola issue a convenient means for statists to restrict freedoms?  Discuss.

[lustindarkness]

Don't put ketchup on your ice cream while driving your car in the ocean.

[Jacob]

Is the Ebola issue a convenient means for statists to restrict freedoms?  Discuss.

The Ebola issue is an illustration of where libertarianism falls completely flat.

Ebola was stopped dead in its tracks in Nigeria due to statist controls and restrictions preventing carriers from responding to economic incentives (his employer wanted him to be released from quarantine to attend a conference, he denied having been in contact with ebola in spite of his sister having died from it a few weeks earlier). Without statist controls and enforced quarantine, we'd be looking at an out-of-control outbreak in Nigeria and thousands of dead with more to come. Instead, thank to statist restrictions of freedoms, there is no ebola in Nigeria.

So it's not so much "convenient" as "basic reality".

[DGuller]

Is the Ebola issue a convenient means for statists to restrict freedoms?  Discuss.

The Ebola issue is an illustration of where libertarianism falls completely flat.

Ebola was stopped dead in its tracks in Nigeria due to statist controls and restrictions preventing carriers from responding to economic incentives (his employer wanted him to be released from quarantine to attend a conference, he denied having been in contact with ebola in spite of his sister having died from it a few weeks earlier). Without statist controls and enforced quarantine, we'd be looking at an out-of-control outbreak in Nigeria and thousands of dead with more to come. Instead, thank to statist restrictions of freedoms, there is no ebola in Nigeria.

So it's not so much "convenient" as "basic reality".

Other people in that conference should've had the right to decide for themselves whether they wanted to be exposed to someone sick with Ebola.

[Razgovory]

Is the Ebola issue a convenient means for statists to restrict freedoms?  Discuss.

The Ebola issue is an illustration of where libertarianism falls completely flat.

Ebola was stopped dead in its tracks in Nigeria due to statist controls and restrictions preventing carriers from responding to economic incentives (his employer wanted him to be released from quarantine to attend a conference, he denied having been in contact with ebola in spite of his sister having died from it a few weeks earlier). Without statist controls and enforced quarantine, we'd be looking at an out-of-control outbreak in Nigeria and thousands of dead with more to come. Instead, thank to statist restrictions of freedoms, there is no ebola in Nigeria.

So it's not so much "convenient" as "basic reality".

Other people in that conference should've had the right to decide for themselves whether they wanted to be exposed to someone sick with Ebola.

Or the convention center owner should have had the right to shoot people with the illness.

[Jacob]

Or the convention center owner should have had the right to shoot people with the illness.

But the thing is, they didn't know he had ebola so they couldn't have.

[alfred russel]

Other people in that conference should've had the right to decide for themselves whether they wanted to be exposed to someone sick with Ebola.

And if I want to have other people exposed to ebola, shouldn't I have that right?

Can anyone show me in the Constitution where the government has been given the power to take my rights away?

[CountDeMoney]

Is the Ebola issue a convenient means for statists to restrict freedoms?  Discuss.

Don't worry, your crowd will get their chance to freedom the shit out of everything once the anti-vaccine crowd really gets things ramped up.  Looking forward to multistate epidemics of measels and pertussis in the name of libertyness.

[Razgovory]

Or the convention center owner should have had the right to shoot people with the illness.

But the thing is, they didn't know he had ebola so they couldn't have.

He reserves the right when enter his property.

[crazy canuck]

Is the Ebola issue a convenient means for statists to restrict freedoms?  Discuss.

The Ebola issue is an illustration of where libertarianism falls completely flat.

Ebola was stopped dead in its tracks in Nigeria due to statist controls and restrictions preventing carriers from responding to economic incentives (his employer wanted him to be released from quarantine to attend a conference, he denied having been in contact with ebola in spite of his sister having died from it a few weeks earlier). Without statist controls and enforced quarantine, we'd be looking at an out-of-control outbreak in Nigeria and thousands of dead with more to come. Instead, thank to statist restrictions of freedoms, there is no ebola in Nigeria.

So it's not so much "convenient" as "basic reality".

Other people in that conference should've had the right to decide for themselves whether they wanted to be exposed to someone sick with Ebola.

Or the convention center owner should have had the right to shoot people with the illness.

/NRA/ fyp /NRA/

[Grey Fox]

Freedom cannot be fought, as you cannot fight the wind, nor can you fight the sun.

[Jacob]

Freedom cannot be fought, as you cannot fight the wind, nor can you fight the sun.

But you can fight the man!

[derspiess]

Freedom cannot be fought, as you cannot fight the wind, nor can you fight the sun.

But you can fight the man!

But can you man the fight? 

[Razgovory]

Freedom cannot be fought, as you cannot fight the wind, nor can you fight the sun.

The hell I can't!  Anything can be fought and defeated with a sufficiently large object moving at relativistic speeds.

[Jacob]

But can you man the fight? 

Under the right circumstances, yes