Is the Ebola issue a convenient means for statists to restrict freedoms? Discuss.
Don't put ketchup on your ice cream while driving your car in the ocean.
Quote from: derspiess on October 21, 2014, 10:58:39 AM
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".
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 11:16:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 21, 2014, 10:58:39 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 11:17:51 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 11:16:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 21, 2014, 10:58:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 11:21:08 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 11:17:51 AM
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?
Quote from: derspiess on October 21, 2014, 10:58:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 11:21:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 11:21:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2014, 11:21:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2014, 11:17:51 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 11:16:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 21, 2014, 10:58:39 AM
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/
Freedom cannot be fought, as you cannot fight the wind, nor can you fight the sun.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 21, 2014, 12:11:59 PM
Freedom cannot be fought, as you cannot fight the wind, nor can you fight the sun.
But you can fight the man!
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2014, 12:31:52 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 21, 2014, 12:11:59 PM
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? :contract:
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 21, 2014, 12:11:59 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on October 21, 2014, 12:33:53 PMBut can you man the fight? :contract:
Under the right circumstances, yes :showoff:
While only a fool would claim that libertarianism means the state has no power to fight something like this, only a fool would also refuse to recognize that the state can, will, and in fact historically has used crisis to justify restrictions in personal freedom. Sometimes those restrictions are reasonable and justified.
Often they are not reasonable or justified, or are enacted for one purpose (we must protect America from terrorists!) then used for completely different purposes (Woohooo! More power to fight the never ending war on drugs!).
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2014, 01:46:53 PM
More power to fight the never ending war on drugs!
Why do people quote the long term nature of the war on drugs as a reason to give up? I mean, the struggle between good and evil has lasted for a while and shows fews signs of winding down, should we give that up too?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 21, 2014, 01:53:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2014, 01:46:53 PM
More power to fight the never ending war on drugs!
Why do people quote the long term nature of the war on drugs as a reason to give up? I mean, the struggle between good and evil has lasted for a while and shows fews signs of winding down, should we give that up too?
Because the fact that the war as abjectly failed while never seeming to end while at the same time costing an immense amount of money while we put more people in prison than any other country on the planet suggests that perhaps we should consider whether it is worth the effort.
But that isn't really my point of course.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2014, 01:57:45 PM
Because the fact that the war as abjectly failed while never seeming to end while at the same time costing an immense amount of money while we put more people in prison than any other country on the planet suggests that perhaps we should consider whether it is worth the effort.
Can't the same arguments be made for theft, murder, and sex crimes?
I'm not sure the criteria for which we are judging the laws to have failed. It seems likely anti drug laws reduce drug use. Evidence indicates for instance alcohol use declined quite a bit during prohibition. Does the cost justify the benefit should be the question. For alcohol and softer drugs, I'm prone to answer no, for harder drugs I'm prone to answer yes, but the liklihood that in 100 years there will still be crime doesn't seem like a good reason to get rid of a set of criminal laws.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 21, 2014, 02:03:34 PM
Can't the same arguments be made for theft, murder, and sex crimes?
Nope.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 21, 2014, 02:03:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2014, 01:57:45 PM
Because the fact that the war as abjectly failed while never seeming to end while at the same time costing an immense amount of money while we put more people in prison than any other country on the planet suggests that perhaps we should consider whether it is worth the effort.
Can't the same arguments be made for theft, murder, and sex crimes?
No. Which is why the same argument isn't made.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2014, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 21, 2014, 02:03:34 PM
Can't the same arguments be made for theft, murder, and sex crimes?
Nope.
The criminalization of child porn laws has abjectly failed despite crackdowns over decades while at the same time costing an immense amount of money while we put more people in prison and sex offender registries than any other country on the planet suggests that perhaps we should consider whether it is worth the effort.
That argument seems cogent, whether you agree with it or not. (I don't)
Interesting you chose porn and not murder.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2014, 02:37:14 PM
Interesting you chose porn and not murder.
:lol: Seems like a safer choice.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2014, 02:37:14 PM
Interesting you chose porn and not murder.
What are you, a TV censor?