05
Apr
2020
Bob Murphy Show Double Header on the Coronavirus
My interview with Dave Smith, and then my solo episode giving some toilet paper analysis–I am the whole package–but more important, some practical tips that our household has adopted to stay safe.
Around 9 minutes you very clearly explain why those with a libertarian bent want to avoid Govt. coercion, but they do not help their case by minimising the impact of Covid 19. You are discrediting your plea against the coercion if you lead with “this is nothing”. The people who really are concerned and have been doing research say no, this seems like it is a big deal. They are not going to believe you – they will tune you out because it seems like you don’t know what you are talking about.
The problem really arises because this method does work. People who want to believe do not think you don’t know what you are talking about, they believe you because it fits with what they want to believe. The more people minimise the consequences, the less people do about it. It is a very effective way to reduce Govt. interference.
At around 30 mins you say that accepting how bad the situation is but rejecting coercion anyway is not the typical reaction you are seeing. What you are seeing is people minimising the consequences to justify their belief that coercion is wrong. This is to be totally expected given human psychology.
An example is a recent column by the columnist Peter Hitchens (brother and diametric opposite of Christopher) misrepresenting data to minimise the effects of Covid 19. As well as lying about the fatality predictions he mis-represents an Oxford study as suggesting 1 in 1000 people who have the disease will need hospitalisation and most people in UK have already had it. In fact that is one possibility from the study, another of which is that there are a smaller number of infections and a larger proportion at risk of hospitalisation. The study does not suggest what Hitchens claims it does, yet he as a self declared non-expert thinks he knows how to interpret the study. This is classic example of someone mimimising the consequences to achieve their objective. It really works. Why bother to get into complex arguments when you can get the same result by dismissing the evidence? People do not say “Hitchens doesn’t know what he is talking about” they say “The Govt is over-reacting and here is the evidence from my trusted source Hitchens.”
[www]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8163587/PETER-HITCHENS-Great-Panic-foolish-freedom-broken-economy-crippled.html
This is exactly how people who believe in “climate change” think about the deniers. The difference is that you will be found out more quickly with Covid. It took Trump a while to figure this out. Until he did, by minimizing the consequences (“very soon we will be at zero etc etc”) he justified reduced Govt interference.
You earlier climate change posts about the TIE etc using the IPCC reports were fine. However, your more recent posts have strayed into much wider areas where you cite unreliable sources from areas outside your economics expertise to minimse the effects and reject scientific conclusions.
The US administration was woefully unprepared and acted very slowly. This was in part because of a science denying attitude. Trump claims no responsibility.
On stockpiling, you say “lets make up some numbers”, but we do actually have some data on this. There is a radio programme over here called “more or less” which analyses statistics in the news. It is hosted by Tim Harford who wrote “The Undecover Economist.” They reported on a study in the UK based on 30,000 households who scan all their receipts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0886bhr
They found only 3% of households showed evidence of stockpiling of pasta- which they defined as buying more than they had ever done before. They did find there were 14% more trips and average spend per trip was up 5%, resulting in a 20% increase in total spend. This was more than we have seen, even in December. The surge in December is expected and planned for, whereas this surge was not . As you say, it is not panic buying but a sensible response to limits on trips we should make and the increase in the meals needed to be prepared in the home. Given our “just in time” supply chains it is inevitable that there will be temporary shortages. These should level out reasonably soon as people are not actually consuming more.
The surge could be reduced by increasing prices at the supermarket, the excess could be in principle donated to charity.
The first part of that program examines a small aprt of Hitchens mis-representation.
The mask issue is not yet certain. The Slatestar article shows that there is no conclusive evidence, and very little evidence at all for general public. The evidence that there is is suggestive of a protective effect for yourself and that it protects others, so it may well do do some good, but it is very premature to speculate that this will be the major difference between countries. I was speaking to a friend who lived a long time in China. He said the people there could not understand how us westerners could be so selfish as to not wear a mask when we go out. It is part of the culture there.
In Australia it has not yet even killed 50 people, which is incredible when you consider an entire nation of nearly 30 million has been held at gunpoint under house arrest for a risk of the order of 2 in a million and even that is mostly old people and those with preexisting conditions.
Stepladders are much more deadly and we don’t shut the nation down over those.
The appalling bad job of government at all levels handling this situation make it practically impossible for the libertarians to achieve a worse outcome in any conceivable scenario. Doing nothing whatever would be about a hundred times better than what they have been doing … and we still have no idea when or whether people will get their jobs back. Government numbnuts managed to turn a difficult situation into a world wide disaster.
There was a bunch of things big government could have done:
* Early detection via international protocols.
* Quickly implemented international travel bans.
* Ensure unprofitable stockpiles of basic items are kept as strategic reserves (gloves, masks, protective equipment, alcohol wipes, etc)
* Encourage citizens to keep home reserves of a few months simple tinned food, toilet paper, hand sanitizer.
* Allow prices to rise on short supply items as a rationing mechanism.
They did none of those useful things, and instead did many terribly harmful things. The French morons won’t even allow people to go out in the sun. If someone was going out of their way to select the worst possible strategy they probably would do about what’s happening now.
“The more people minimise the consequences, the less people do about it. It is a very effective way to reduce Govt. interference.”
The more people minimize the historical consequences of such govt. interferences, the less people do about it. It is a very effective way to reduce the sensible fear of govt. interventions.
Like, say, the multiple tens of millions of deaths that interventions like we see to the coronavirus have caused through slaughter and starvation.
If you were convinced by your argument, then consistency demands that you be convinced by my argument.
Free markets care more for people in its uncaring efficiency than socialism does with its bleeding heart.
Our side saves more lives. You lose.
I agree that ignoring evidence and mis-representing data can be effective political methods. I don’t think they are good arguments in the logical sense, but they can be very persuasive. These methods are used by political organisations of all kinds. The broad “left” is guilty if misrepresenting data on, for example, nuclear energy and GMO’s.
We are all susceptible to confirmation bias and similar ways of thinking, myself included. If we acknowledge this we may be able to do something about it.
The Yemen War has killed approximately the same as COVID-19 but that war has been simmering away for 5 years. I think there might be additional Cholera deaths that haven’t been counted so if you want to blame the Cholera on government action then the Yemen War would be slightly ahead in death count, and likely to keep going a while longer too.
https://www.cfr.org/interactive/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/war-yemen
“You are discrediting your plea against the coercion if you lead with “this is nothing”.“
The goal shouldn’t be to find ways to present our arguments so that they appeal to Harold or anyone like him. It’s a fruitless endeavor. In fact, I’m of the opinion that the more division between us politically, the better. The goal is to peacefully separate from each other and to go our own ways. I do not care what political system he wants to live under or what measures he wants taken during a pandemic or any other event. He could live under a complete socialist regime for all I care, as long as he doesn’t require me to join him.
We are in a failed marriage. Nothing will fix it. There is no chance of us coming together. Divorce is the only rational decision.
I agree with Bob that such arguments ought to discredit your plea. They just often don’t in practice.
There’s at least 100 years of mask usage in hospitals and medical centers, every surgeon uses a mask to protect the patient from infection, and they have been successfully used in Asia with earlier outbreaks such as SARS for example.
Their stupid “social distancing” strategy was only thought up off the cuff, has never been successfully used anywhere, causes maximum disruption for minimum benefit, and there’s no evidence in this outbreak that it has helped. It almost looks like outright sabotage, and I don’t say that lightly. This is from the same people who demand years of double blind trials for the use of a generic drug like Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc, even when the side effects are mild and well tested, and it’s already shown promise in small trials. So where is the double blind trial of social distancing?
To make things worse, they kept the schools and child care centers open so that spreads it around in a most efficient manner via the kids who invariably catch and pass on everything going around. Here is the official statement:
https://www.health.gov.au/news/australian-health-protection-principal-committee-ahppc-coronavirus-covid-19-statement-on-18-march-2020-0
They admit their plan is based on limited data, and they are taking advice from the same Chinese authorities who lied about this in the first place. Meanwhile the Australian authorities busted someone for walking while eating a kebab which he had purchased … wait for it, getting food is approved, going for a walk is approved, but they didn’t actually say you could eat while walking … that’s the level of intelligence our police are displaying.
The Austrian theorists come up with all these complex reasons why central planning can’t work no matter if there was a wise and knowledgable planner but those theories are all correct but in practice worthless. Whenever we get into these situations it becomes rapidly and painfully obvious that the central planners are only adept at ceasing power, and hopeless at everything else they do. Chairman Mao sent farmers off to swat down sparrows then blamed the resulting famine on bad weather. Now we have “social distancing” the 21st Century sparrow swatting exercise.
“The Austrian theorists come up with all these complex reasons why central planning can’t work no matter if there was a wise and knowledgable planner but those theories are all correct but in practice worthless. Whenever we get into these situations it becomes rapidly and painfully obvious that the central planners are only adept at ceasing power, and hopeless at everything else they do.”
In their defense, I think the point is to say that central planning cannot work, even in theory, and even on their own terms – so they should think before they act and choose to do nothing rather than try to help.
I think this would interest you.
“China put 46 million people on lockdown to contain the Wuhan coronavirus, and now the US is prepared to quarantine people, too. But quarantines throughout history have been riddled with mishaps.”
by Natalie Colarossi
https://www.businessinsider.com/quarantine-history-following-china-wuhan-coronavirus-lockdowns-2020-1#the-trump-administration-is-taking-precautionary-measures-to-prevent-the-virus-form-spreading-in-the-us-16
Also.
“Nearly 60 Percent of U.S. Workers Won’t Be Able to Meet Their Basic Financial Needs Under One-Month Coronavirus Quarantine, Survey Shows”
by Alexandra Hutzler
https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-60-percent-workers-wont-meet-financial-needs-under-1495364
“Nearly six in 10 American workers will not be able to meet their basic financial needs in one month or less under quarantine due to the coronavirus pandemic.”
“Fifty-eight percent of workers say they won’t be able to pay rent, buy groceries or take care of bills if quarantined for 30 days or less, according to a new survey from the Society for Human Research Management (SHRM) released Wednesday morning.”
“One in five workers said they’d be unable to meet those basic financial needs in less than one week under quarantine.”
“”This has a real impact on people’s lives and it’s creating a level of stress that cannot be overstated,” said Johnny C. Taylor Jr., the president and CEO of SHRM, noting that many Americans live “right on the margins of paycheck to paycheck.””
https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-60-percent-workers-wont-meet-financial-needs-under-1495364
“Nearly 60 percent of U.S. workers won’t be able to meet their basic financial needs under one-month coronavirus quarantine, survey shows”
by Alexandra Hutzler
https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-60-percent-workers-wont-meet-financial-needs-under-1495364
“Nearly six in 10 American workers will not be able to meet their basic financial needs in one month or less under quarantine due to the coronavirus pandemic.”
“Fifty-eight percent of workers say they won’t be able to pay rent, buy groceries or take care of bills if quarantined for 30 days or less, according to a new survey from the Society for Human Research Management (SHRM) released Wednesday morning.”
“One in five workers said they’d be unable to meet those basic financial needs in less than one week under quarantine.”
“How Authoritarians Are Exploiting the COVID-19 Crisis to Grab Power”
by Kenneth Roth
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/03/how-authoritarians-are-exploiting-covid-19-crisis-grab-power
“For authoritarian-minded leaders, the coronavirus crisis is offering a convenient pretext to silence critics and consolidate power. Censorship in China and elsewhere has fed the pandemic, helping to turn a potentially containable threat into a global calamity. The health crisis will inevitably subside, but autocratic governments’ dangerous expansion of power may be one of the pandemic’s most enduring legacies.”
“In times of crisis, people’s health depends at minimum on free access to timely, accurate information. The Chinese government illustrated the disastrous consequence of ignoring that reality. When doctors in Wuhan tried to sound the alarm in December about the new coronavirus, authorities silenced and reprimanded them. The failure to heed their warnings gave COVID-19 a devastating three-week head start. As millions of travelers left or passed through Wuhan, the virus spread across China and around the world.”
…
“Some governments are breathing a sigh of relief that the coronavirus has provided a convenient reason to limit political demonstrations. The Algerian government has halted regular protests seeking genuine democratic reform that have been under way for more than a year. The Russian government has stopped even single-person protests against Vladimir Putin’s plans to rip up term limits on his presidency. The Indian government’s recently announced three-week lockdown conveniently ends the running protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s anti-Muslim citizenship policies. It remains to be seen whether such restrictions outlive the coronavirus threat.”
“Other governments are using the coronavirus to intensify digital surveillance. China has deepened and extended the surveillance state that is most developed in Xinjiang, where it was used to identify some of the one million Uighur and other Turkic Muslims for detention and forced indoctrination. South Korea has broadcast detailed and highly revealing information about people’s movements to anyone who might have had contact with them. Israel’s government has cited the coronavirus to authorize its Shin Bet internal security agency to use vast amounts of location-tracking data from the cellphones of ordinary Israelis. In Moscow, Russia is installing one of the world’s largest surveillance camera systems equipped with facial recognition technology. As occurred after September 11, 2001, it may be difficult to put the surveillance genie back in the bottle after the crisis fades.”
“Essential fruit and veg pickers ‘homeless’ due to coronavirus, meaning crops may be left to rot”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-09/backpacker-accommodation-shortage-risks-veg-harvest-coronavirus/12132718
“The fruit and vegetable industry has warned that crops may be left to rot in fields because of a major shortage of accommodation for backpackers who pick the produce.”
Interesting paper that Romans Pancs linked to over at Steve Landsburg’s blog.
https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/rebelo/htm/epidemics.pdf
It uses a combines SIR and economic models to calculate optimum containment strategies given different scenarios, e.g. healthcare system overwhelm and possibility of a vaccine.
One message is that utility is maximised by containment measures that result in a much more severe recession than doing nothing.
This is exactly what we have been asking for with the question “does the lock-down do more harm than good?”
The model is simple so can only give broad pointers, but is a very useful contribution.
“One message is that utility is maximised by containment measures that result in a much more severe recession than doing nothing.”
Utility can be maximized by a severe recession? Can you hear yourself?
I was looking for a quote by some Chinese dictator that, after hearing about a large number of Chinese killing themselves, said something to the effect of, “What’s a million Chinese? We have enough of them,” and haven’t found it yet, but I did find this quote by a commenter that sounds just like you in your attitude:
That commenter said: “… If we are to believe the research then 42 million people died in the famine,so did Mao kill them? Not really, his policies killed them. Did he start his policies to kill 45 million? I do not think so and have seen no evidence to support that argument.”
That’s what you sound like when you say “utility is maximized by severe recession”. As long as the government means well.
Anticipating an objection:
Austrians believe that recessions are necessary to clear out the malinvestments, but recessions naturally end when the economy is left alone to re-allocate production to suit consumer demands (rather than political ones).
Did you read the paper? It is based on standard economic models solved for utility maximisation.
You may or may not accept the validity of such models, but “mainstream” economics is not communism.
The recession is more severe but many fewer lives are lost. Is that worth it in economic terms? How many lives saved vs how deep a depression is a good trade off? The paper addresses this sort of question.
It seems tat you do not think the question is e
“You may or may not accept the validity of such models, but “mainstream” economics is not communism.”
But, as mentioned elsewhere, it is these policies that resulted in the tens of millions of lives lost – vastly more than what would be lost to the coronavirus.
Call it communism, or not, these are the policies that communists pursued – the ends don’t matter because the logic is the same.
And no, the question is not relevent because it gets the foundation of economics wrong. Economics – being all about individual ends, and the means that these individuals use to achieve those ends – by definition already factor in an individual’s willingness (or not) to risk exposure to life-threatening situations.
If *you* think people are not smart enough, or willing enough, to not contaminate people around you, making it difficult for you to go out and make a living, then *you* can choose to lock yourself away in your home until *you* decide that your risk of dying of starvation is greater than your risk of dying from the coronavirus, and at that point *you* will have voluntarily chosen to *take that risk of your own accord*.
Those of us who understand the lessons the Founding Fathers attempted to teach, and the lessons of the failures of communist policies (I include Trump’s tarrifs, and also our Founders’ tariffs, among them), know that we’d better not stop making profits or our fates will be the same.
From the book “Man, Economy, and State”:
Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market
[www]https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market
“Superficially, it looks to many people as if the free market is a chaotic and anarchic place, while government intervention imposes order and community values upon this anarchy. Actually, praxeology—economics—shows us that the truth is quite the reverse. We may divide our analysis into the direct, or palpable, effects, and the indirect, hidden effects of the two principles. Directly, voluntary action—free exchange—leads to the mutual benefit of both parties to the exchange. Indirectly, as our investigations have shown, the network of these free exchanges in society—known as the “free market”—creates a delicate and even awe-inspiring mechanism of harmony, adjustment, and precision in allocating productive resources, deciding upon prices, and gently but swiftly guiding the economic system toward the greatest possible satisfaction of the desires of all the consumers. In short, not only does the free market directly benefit all parties and leave them free and uncoerced; it also creates a mighty and efficient instrument of social order. Proudhon, indeed, wrote better than he knew when he called “Liberty, the Mother, not the Daughter, of Order.”
“On the other hand, coercion has diametrically opposite features. Directly, coercion benefits one party only at the expense of others. Coerced exchange is a system of exploitation of man by man, in contrast to the free market, which is a system of cooperative exchanges in the exploitation of nature alone. And not only does coerced exchange mean that some live at the expense of others, but, indirectly, as we have just observed, coercion leads only to further problems: it is inefficient and chaotic, it cripples production, and it leads to cumulative and unforeseen difficulties. Seemingly orderly, coercion is not only exploitative; it is also profoundly disorderly.
“The major function of praxeology—of economics—is to bring to the world the knowledge of these indirect, these hidden, consequences of the different forms of human action. The hidden order, harmony, and efficiency of the voluntary free market, the hidden disorder, conflict, and gross inefficiency of coercion and intervention—these are the great truths that economic science, through deductive analysis from self-evident axioms, reveals to us.“
“If by “mainstream” you mean Keynesian economics then yup it’s pretty darn close to Communism.”
No, absolutely not. By “mainstream” I man using the idea of maximising utility.
I know some here reject th idea that the concept of utility maximisation is flawed, but it is at the heart of what I am calling “mainstream economics”
If by “mainstream” you mean Keynesian economics then yup it’s pretty darn close to Communism. Perhaps there’s room to slide a cigarette paper between Stalin and Keynes but only because Stalin was in a hurry and Keynes was a patient Fabian willing to slice the salami one thin sliver at a time.
http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch10.html
Reply above.
Somehow submitted mid-sentence.
To continue, it seems that you do not think the question is even worth asking.
Bob –
I appreciate that you have separated the coronavirus issue into two aspects – the health issues and the political/economic issues of overreacting/quasi-martial law, etc.
Looking at the medical end of things (how it’s transmitted, who is infected, number of deaths, prevention and treatment, testing for antibodies vs the virus itself, etc.), apart from a few anecdotal stories, it seems everyone is relying on the CDC, the State media, Trump, that creep Fauci and the fedgov in general for their information.
Given that these people have already been caught lying several times on this subject, how can you believe anything they say? Weren’t these the same people that told us that the income tax was temporary and would never be above a few percent? And that Pearl Harbor was a surprise? That Oswald acted alone? There were WMDs in Iraq? That Jeffrey Epstein killed himself? Isn’t this another case of Lucy pulling the football out from Charlie Brown? What’s different about this one?
” Weren’t these the same people that told us that the income tax was temporary and would never be above a few percent? ”
I am certin that Fauci had nothing to do say about this. Nor about Pearl Harbour.
I mean, why is Fauci a creep?
“Given that these people have already been caught lying several times on this subject, how can you believe anything they say?” The main person caught lying is Trump (totally under control, soon to be zero, disappear like magic when the wheather warms up etc etc.) Indeed, how can one believe anything he says?
What do you mean by the State media?
Your comment is incoherent.
Bob you have to get Carbon Mike on the show.
https://www.futurerad.io/
This seems a good opportunity to lay out the position of libertarian approaches. There have been various hypotheticals about asteroids etc, but now we have a real situation that we can relate to.
As I uderstsnd it, thelibertarian position is to leave all choices to individuals, because they have the greatest kowledge aboout their own situation.
There should be no directives about how one should or must behave during this pandemic. The Govt. should do nothing more than distribute information.
Choices about how much to isolate should be left to the individual, after the best current evidence has been presented to them.
There should be no restrictions on movement or on any activities individuals wish to take. The individuals are best placed to make these choices.
Do I have this right?
“This seems a good opportunity to lay out the position of libertarian approaches. …”
“… As I uderstsnd it, thelibertarian position is …”
“… Do I have this right?
Since my BS meter is spiking, I’ll respond this way:
The libertarian position is that, by default, each individual has a right to be left alone, and you need to justify a reason to interfere in someone’s life.
So you tell us why the coronavirus gives you the right to restrict my way of life rather than you taking responsibility for your own life and choosing to self-isolate.
Harold, the libertarian position is that the only legitimate role for government is as the peace keeper. Everything else should be managed by individuals or by voluntary cooperation among the people in society.
Can you describe a choice that was NOT made by an individual, regardless of the political system?
What kind of decision making entity exists besides individuals?
I accept that individuals do make somewhat different types of decisions when they are in groups, and there are many variation on a theme in terms of a parliament or a congress, or a committee. These are all structured ways for individuals to make decisions, and in most cases come down to votes, with some room for different styles of voting.
No perfect voting system has been found, although I’m not against voting as such we must simply accept that there are times when it won’t work as well as you might like. At any rate, it’s still individuals who vote and in some sense the decision cannot exist without those individuals.
If you want to discuss whether individuals make BETTER decisions in an isolated manner or in conjunction with other individuals, that’s an interesting discussion … but think of it this way: each individual who joins a group and agrees to go along with some kind of voting system must have individually decided to accept that. At the very least, each person individually decided not to run away or fight the others. Thus, any individual who has come to the conclusion that working with a group gives a better result, based on whatever system they can come up with, has the opportunity to do so, regardless of what you might think, and regardless of any “libertarian position”.
Tel, “Can you describe a choice that was NOT made by an individual, regardless of the political system?”
Depends who you ask, and whether you consider AIs to be individuals or not.
https://theconversation.com/drones-will-soon-decide-who-to-kill-94548
I think I’m safe to leave that for my grandchildren, but at this stage AI is not so smart when it comes to real world situational awareness. Thus, no I do not consider the current generation of AI’s to be “individuals”.
They are getting better though … a day will come.
From the sounds of it, some of these advanced military drones are already smart enough. By smart enough, I do not mean ethical enough, but, able to engage in data analytics and make a choice based on that data, even if that choice is a callous, unfeeling choice.
So it’s not really a question of whether they are smart enough, but whether the wealthy militaries of the world are going to stop asking a human being to at least confirm the kill decision before the actual killing is allowed to happen.
According to some people, this has already started happening, in a limited number of cases.
Also see this
“I Quit My Job to Protest My Company’s Work on Building Killer Robots”
by Liz O’Sullivan
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/targeted-killing/i-quit-my-job-protest-my-companys-work-building-killer
“The core issue is whether a robot should be able to select and acquire its own target from a list of potential ones and attack that target without a human approving each kill. One example of a fully autonomous weapon that’s in use today is the Israeli Harpy 2 drone (or Harop), which seeks out enemy radar signals on its own. If it finds a signal, the drone goes into a kamikaze dive and blows up its target.”
“I Quit My Job to Protest My Company’s Work on Building Killer Robots”
by Liz O’Sullivan
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/targeted-killing/i-quit-my-job-protest-my-companys-work-building-killer
“The core issue is whether a robot should be able to select and acquire its own target from a list of potential ones and attack that target without a human approving each kill. One example of a fully autonomous weapon that’s in use today is the Israeli Harpy 2 drone (or Harop), which seeks out enemy radar signals on its own. If it finds a signal, the drone goes into a kamikaze dive and blows up its target.”
Tel: “Can you describe a choice that was NOT made by an individual, regardless of the political system?”
I don’t want to get too much into this argument, but perhaps I can re-phrase it that the libertarian position is that an individuals’ choices should not be curtailed by threats of violence, such as if you do this, the State will act against you with fines and ultimately prison.
You will always have a choice. Pointing a gun at you cannot make you do anything, but if it reduces your choice to “do this or die”, many people say “I had no choice.”
Guest “The libertarian position is that, by default, each individual has a right to be left alone, and you need to justify a reason to interfere in someone’s life.”
My understanding was that consequences could never be a justification in the Libertarian view. Maybe I am wrong in describing anything as *the* libertarian view, as there are probably many shades, but perhaps we could examine the most pure form here.
The asteroid example was where everybody chips in $1 and the asteroid can be diverted. In the libertarian view it is wrong to compel everyone to chip in that $1.
That example is not very good, because somebody coud just chip in an extra $1 if there was a refusenik, so you have to introduce all sorts of unlikely reasons why everyone needs to contribute.
By extension, in our current situation, my understanding of the libertarian position is that compelling everyone to stay at home using threats of force cannot be justified, because it can never be justified. The consequences do not matter, because if you consider the consequences you have become a consequentialist, and where would that end?
What does matter is that your choices must not take away the choices of other people. You cannot just murder people because you want to.
You are free to do what you want as long as it does not affect anyone else.
So if you are definitely infected, I think there would be a libertarian justification on restricting your movements to prevent you infecting other people. Do you agree? Is enforced isolation of proven infected people justified under sny circumstances?
There are things that reduce a person’s ability to express free will more so than the threat of death.
For example, Daniel P. Mannix writes in “The History of Torture” that, during the middle ages,
“A Milanese judge became suspicious of confessions obtained under torture and finally decided on an efficient if rough method of testing their truth. He killed his mule and then accused one of his servants. The man confessed under torture and refused to retract his statement even on the gallows for fear of new punishments. The judge promptly abolished the use of torture in his court.”
I can’t tell you what anyone of any particular political philosophy would think.
However, there are reasons to oppose quarantines regardless of political philosophy or lack thereof. For example, in Germany, and probably other places as well, some people have attended Corona parties in the hopes of getting infected, being ill for a time, becoming immune, and then being able to live normally again.
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/gesundheit/coronavirus/virologe-warnt-vor-corona-partys-feiern-trotz-pandemie-16685265.html
While officials, doctors, and social media companies have condemned and censored people interested in attending or throwing Corona parties, there is now apparently a New York doctor saying that strict social distancing could cause more deaths by delaying heard immunity, as discussed in this report by One America News.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W2CAZG3ucg
The article discussed by One America News can be found here:
“Why Severe Social Distancing Might Actually Result In More Coronavirus Deaths: What the media and policymakers are not telling us is that the longer we delay the development of herd immunity, the more elderly or high-risk people will become infected and die”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/03/why-severe-social-distancing-might-actually-result-in-more-coronavirus-deaths/
“What the media and policymakers are not telling us is that the longer we delay the development of herd immunity, the more elderly or high-risk people will become infected and die, even if we were to maintain the quarantine indefinitely. Why is this the case?”
…
“Indeed, the Imperial College modeling says as much: “Once interventions are relaxed (in the example in Figure 3, from September onwards), infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted larger peak epidemic later in the year: The more successful a strategy is at temporary suppression, the larger the later epidemic is predicted to be in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity.””
…
“Therefore, if we stop the quarantine for all low-risk people now, herd immunity would develop more quickly. If we also were to keep the elderly and high-risk people isolated from everyone else during this time, including their own family members (i.e., a partial quarantine), we would save countless lives, while also decreasing the stress on the medical system.”
“This strategy would also limit the stress on the medical system caused by the fear and panic induced by the full quarantine, a variable that has not been considered in most models and to which any physician on the frontlines can attest. And there would be limited impact on the economy.”
…
“How many more elderly or medically ill people will die due to a full quarantine? It is hard to say, but a conservative estimate would be 5-10 times the number of young and healthy people who may die from a partial quarantine, based on fatality rates published by the CDC.”
Incidentally, Sweden is thus far avoiding a major lockdown.
“Sweden dismisses Trump’s claim after US president takes swipe at coronavirus strategy”
https://www.thelocal.se/20200408/we-dont-share-donald-trumps-opinion-about-swedens-coronavirus-situation
“Stockholm has not imposed extraordinary lockdown orders seen elsewhere in Europe to stem the spread of the virus. Almost 700 people have died with the virus in the Scandinavian nation.”
…
“On Wednesday, Swedish health authorities reported 8,419 confirmed cases of the new coronavirus, with 687 deaths, saying that the infection rate seemed to be slowing down in Stockholm but increasing in other parts of Sweden.”
“So if you are definitely infected, I think there would be a libertarian justification on restricting your movements to prevent you infecting other people. Do you agree? Is enforced isolation of proven infected people justified under sny circumstances?”
So, if you are definitely granting the government powers that could result, and has historically resulted, in the slaughter and starvation of tens of millions of people, I think there would be a libertarian justification on restricting the government’s ability to enforce quarantines.
Is the threat of violent armed defense a sufficient dissuasion against forced isolations if the goal is to minimize lives lost?
I am seeking clarification. Whether it is the State or some other mechanism, Libertarians agree that it is justified to reduce the liberty of some individuals if their acts harm others, such as theft, assault and murder. Does this apply to people who are known to be infected with a contageous disease? As a matter of principle.
Restricting th movements of the known infected is isolation rather than quarantine. Quarantine is where the potentially infected as well the actually infected are also restricted.
My thought is that it consitent with a libertarian position to restrict the known infected, but possibly not the potentially infected
“if you are granting the government powers that could result, and has historically resulted, in the slaughter and starvation of tens of millions of people”
I think you might be giving Harold credit for having a lot more power than he actually has.
However, mass starvation is a genuine risk, as reported by this article from the Guardian, which is actually quite astonishing, that this piece was allowed to be published, given how censored UK media seems of late.
“Coronavirus could double number of people going hungry: Exclusive: multinationals write to G7 and G20 urging leaders to keep borders open to trade and avert global food crisis”
by Fiona Harvey
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/coronavirus-could-double-number-of-people-going-hungry
Several websites suggest an estimate of about 9 million people dying per year of hunger, worldwide, so if that were doubled, it would mean an additional 9 million people dying of hunger.
I don’t think this can be blamed on “government powers” though. This seems to have popular support, to some degree, at least in many wealthier nations. If people en masse said, “No, we don’t want to stay home,” they couldn’t arrest everyone. This has more the hallmarks of mass panic than government powers.
The State consists of a Constitution, statutory law, some buildings, some bank accounts, a sense of tradition, and a bunch of employees.
Individual agents of the state might make decisions, such as a police officer deciding to pull you over. Those decisions would (hopefully) be influenced by laws (as interpreted by humans) and also by the chain of command (all humans). There is no point in time where “The State” makes any decision about anything. People acting on behalf of “The State” might impose threats of violence on other people, but all actions are the result of some people somewhere.
Voting is a way for a group of people to make a collective decision, many decisions attributed to “The State” are made by select groups of individuals using votes. Sometimes even multiple rounds of voting (e.g. bill passing House, and Senate). People acting in a group often behave slightly differently to how they would behave without the group, therefore some people think that Parliaments and debate might be helpful if that means ideas get a bit more due consideration before action.
Getting back to your original question, this has never been about decisions made by individuals in general being curtailed. It is about whether decisions made by some elected or appointed individuals being held as superior to everyone else, by use threats of violence coming from other individuals.
You cannot escape the idea of individuals making decisions, all you can do is move it around from less powerful people to more powerful people and perhaps limit the nature of that power with laws, rules, tradition, etc.
I have been thinking some more. The libertarian position (as I understand it) is that anyone can prevent access to their property for any reason whatever. So it is not down to telling someone they cannot go out, it is up to property owners to say “don’t come in here!”
You could deny entry to anyone with Covid19 infection, but that does not work because people do not know if they have it, so you would have no redress presumably. Anyone could be infected. You could say don’t come in if you have a cough and a fever, then sue them later if they break your rules. That would not help much.
You could deny enrty to everyone, but that would mean shutting down your business voluntarily, which some would chose to do. But you cannot tell people to stay home.
However we are beterr off than with a zombie apocolypse. Using the SIR model, eveyone is susceptible, each infected person can infect several others and the infected never die or recover.
In terms of judging how bad the recent Woofloo is, compared with other diseases, there’s a site for European countries with the friendly sounding name Euro Momo which is short for “Monitoring Mortality”.
https://www.euromomo.eu/outputs/zscore_country_total.html
A few interesting points, those influenza outbreaks show strongly on the line and they are more dangerous than most people think. The do kill a lot of people, especially old people. In a regular year, people simply shrug it off … fact of life … nothing you can do about it.
The recent data probably takes some time to settle, there will be revisions to counts. The recent deaths are worse than normal but better than a bad flu year like 2016. The COVID-19 and regular Influenza both hit approximately the same vulnerable population group, and no one can die twice so more deaths from one automatically means fewer deaths from the other.
The stealthy nature of COVID-19 seems to make it more intimidating, but could be mostly the media beat-up in terms of a bunch of health officials feeling like what Krugman would call Very Serious People (VSP’s) getting hugely elevated self importance. The world contains risks and it always will do, although the details of those risks might change from time to time. We are all gonna die of something.
I attempted to provoke Tom Woods with this link but he appears to be holding himself aloof.
https://culturewars.com/podcasts/are-there-problems-with-capitalism
“Home evictions rising in Covid-19 crisis, warns Labour”
by Rowena Mason
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/evictions-rising-in-covid-19-crisis-warns-shadow-housing-secretary
“Landlords appear to be evicting tenants at record rates despite the government’s promise that no one will lose their home because of coronavirus, Labour has said, as it called for an urgent package of housing benefit support.”
“John Healey, the shadow housing secretary, said he had received a whistleblowing email from a property management company saying that evictions were at a record high in their region.”
“The company told him there was anecdotal evidence that this was happening across the country, and said it was having to recruit more bailiffs to deal with demand.”
““We have appointed new agents to cope with the rapid increase in evictions,” it said. “We have not seen any HM Government restrictions or official advice since the Covid-19 pandemic was announced.””
Some of my neighbors are so insane about the topic of mask-wearing, that I can post the following information from the CDC, and have people yell at me that I need to stop spreading ideas that have the “definite possibility of exponentially increasing the spread of this pandemic.”
“Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.”
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html
*sarcasm* The CDC! Spreading dangerous misinformation that you shouldn’t put masks on infants since 2020! Because, obviously, putting a mask on an infant couldn’t possibly be a choking hazard! *end sarcasm*
“Teens Beat 51-Year-Old Asian Woman For Not Wearing Mask”
by Sandy Malone
https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/teens-beat-51-year-old-asian-woman-for-not-wearing-mask-UhDEvGQAaUechvM97pRAVQ
Some of my neighbors might be insane enough to do something like that.