I pick on libertarianism because I once considered it my political philosophy. I still think it has plenty to offer, but no longer think it is the end of the discussion. It’s also of interest to me because it’s so important to American political thought; even if the Libertarian Party has not been wildly successful and even if inclinations toward libertarianism are horribly diluted in practice by our politicians. So, last night, I found myself dreaming about having an argument with a friend about libertarianism and epidemiology. Yes, in fact, I do have the lamest dreams ever.
Washington’s visage fades away. Lisa talks in her sleep, “I want to help you, George Washington…”
Bart to Lisa: “I want to help you, George Washington”? Pfft, even your dreams are
square.”
In any case, I have previously indicate my belief that libertarianism is generally inadequate for addressing pollution where the harm is often subtle, indirect, and hard to deal with using the court system. (The second main one often on my mind is to question whether use of the corporate form is permissible to libertarians given that its primary purpose is to insulate individuals from liability.)
Now, I find myself wondering what the libertarian approach to epidemiology might be. Would, for example, eradication of small pox be possible in a libertarian society. What about compulsory innoculation or strong incentives for innoculation? I’ve never heard this addressed, and, frankly, never given it much thought before. But, I suspect the libertarian position would be that government can’t force or coerce an individual into getting an innoculation. The body, of all things, belongs to the individual.
O.k., but then what? The individuals who refuse innoculation have increased the risk of infectious disease for the entire population. What do the individuals owe the rest of the population for increasing their risk in this fashion?
We are a society of individuals; which is why libertarianism is valuable. But, by the same token, we are a society of individuals; which is why it is not the whole answer.
Doghouse Riley says
But isn’t part of the attraction of modern political libertarianism the secure knowledge that one may espouse it without ever risking being subjected to it in un-distilled form? That the rest of society will continue to provide police and fire services to protect the libertarian’s property, and roads to get goods to market, and (Colbert is stealing my jokes!) intersection crossings will still be governed by stoplights and not self-interest?
Dave H says
Nice spot on the corporate form and libertarianism… few libertarians even think about this, and fewer still actually address it.
Mike Kole says
Where the society takes primacy, you get thiings like Jim Crow, bans on gay marriage, and other oppression, because hey! It’s democracy!
What it comes down to is the fallacy of the ‘common good’. For the knuckle-dragging bigot, the common good is government intervention. For the oppressable minority? Hey! You’re just part of society! That’s your share!
Jason says
I think some people (including some Libertarians) confuse the political party of “Libertarian” and Rand’s Objectivism.
Usually, a party is comparing itself against the other parties, not representing an all-or-nothing. I think the point is that Libertarians are more for Objectivism ideas than the R’s or D’s, but at the same time, I think most wouldn’t go for 100% individual rights.
To Doug’s point, I think some Libertarians could argue that if Doug didn’t get a shot, it infringes on my rights.
Pete C says
A while back I read some comments by a libertarian who said he didn’t mind paying for things he actually uses, such as roads. I pondered a little bit about where the cutoff point might be. But my basic question is, what does a libertarian do for an old, ill, or indigent person that he comes across in the course of daily living?
Steph Mineart says
I love taking that notion of paying only for what one uses to the extreme. I only want to pay for Broadway, 16th Street and College Ave. Forget the other streets. Keep extrapolating that to the logical end, and what you have is me out putting down tarmac myself where I need a road. Clearly, I’m not qualified, so I enlist a government to do it for me, and I help pay.
But you hit the nail squarely on the head – we’re a society. As long as we’re all trying to live in proximity to one another, there has to be some contribution to the common good. Yes, there has to be a balance between individual interests and the common good, therefore we have government and laws to try to discover the appropriate balance.
Those who disagree — criminals, anarchists and libertarians among them — are free to go live on a Pacific island away from those of us who choose to live in a community.
Steph Mineart says
Heh. Criminals, anarchists and libertarians. Redundancy abounds.
Mike Kole says
Steph, don’t complain, then, when society votes as it does on a Prop 8, etc. The greatest good, not an individual right, must be upheld in a society, right?
stAllio! says
sorry, but no. how does banning gay marriage benefit society or contribute to the common good? it doesn’t. on the contrary, ending the ban would benefit far more people than the ban does.
Jason says
Yet Mike’s point is valid. When you say “We’ll do whatever the majority says”, you must allow Prop 8. However, the more you don’t allow it, the more of a republic or dictatorship you become.
stAllio! says
again, no. doing the greater good and “whatever the majority says” are not at all the same thing.
Jason says
stAllio, who decides the “greater good”? You?
Either we allow the people to decide what the “greater good” is, or we do something other than pure democracy to try to strike a balance.
Mike Kole says
Amen, Jason. It takes a pretty self-righteous person to claim to know what the common good is. I sure don’t know what it is. I know that I have interests, others have interests, and they are often quite opposite. But I don’t for a minute think that because I like my ideas so much they should be imposed by others, if only it is backed by the farse of a vote.
Somewhere, some members of the GLBT community got this, and showed it by protesting the outcome of California’s Prop 8, even here in Indiana. Why? Because they recognized that the sanctity of a vote can still violate that which should be recognized as inalienable human rights.
I don’t have a lot of support for democratic procedure that says, “Hey, let’s gang up on this group”, as the Ben Franklin quote goes, “Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”.
I know that I don’t like being part of the targeted group in some areas of life. I cannot for the life of me fathom why one who is part of a targeted group would continue to back a democratic way of doing government in favor of a government that recognizes rights as absolutes- not chips to be bargained and traded. I have little patience or respect for those who would so eagerly embrace the opportunity to use the force of government as backed by a vote- when it suits them- and who would then cry, “Oppression!” when it doesn’t suit them.
Mike Kole says
Steph, I took a lot of arrows when I ran for office as a Libertarian Party candidate. Some of these arrows I took because I backed the right of minority groups to live their lives their way, and I think you know that about me from the opposition to SJR-7 here. Your comment #7, “Heh. Criminals, anarchists and libertarians. Redundancy abounds,” is the single most bigoted thing I have ever had thrown at me in public, and the most offensive.
To lump in all libertarians with criminals? My God, the anti-intellectualism of painting with the broad brush. And to recommend relocation? Incredible that someone of an oppressed minority group can be so insensitive given the opportunity to trash another minority within this forum, under apparent safe cover.
stAllio! says
stAllio, who decides the “greater good� You?
that’s a separate issue, but in the american system this is usually up to legislatures and, to a lesser degree, the court system.
Either we allow the people to decide what the “greater good†is, or we do something other than pure democracy to try to strike a balance.
this is tautological, but i’m not sure what you think it proves. we don’t live in a pure democracy, and i don’t see anyone here suggesting we should. on the contrary, read steph’s comment again. she wrote, “there has to be a balance between individual interests and the common good, therefore we have government and laws to try to discover the appropriate balance.”
Doug says
Another distinction here is that the person who refuses to get vaccinated is increasing the risk of direct, physical harm to others.
The risk of harm from gay marriage, to the extent one exists outside the fevered imaginations of those who believe in a literal horned devil, is amorphous at best.
Lou says
There’s always been a fine line between bigotry and moral values; that’s why I’ve always instinctively been suspicious of any politican who talks ‘values’,family or otherwise.. Just make your proposals,and people will make their own judgments.Morality,is that’s your measure, is best understood in the ramifications of legislation (rather than the wording of the proposal) and that’s what ‘moral’ politicians too often judge irrelevant. Find answers constitutionally; that’s where the ‘common good’ process begins,both liberal and conservative.
If gays shouldn’t marry each other, for example, find it in the Constitution.At the same time find why heterosexuals are allowed to marry constitutionally and then hash it out on a constitutional level.
But if something is found constitutional and hasn’t been allowed,either officially or by local option, such as minority voting or women’s suffrage,or integration,then the government needs to move in with full force and make it right.This is how I personally define ‘liberal thinking.’
It has never been clear what libertarians would do about issues such as women being denied the right to vote,and to the current issue of gays being allowed,or not allowed, to marry.These may,or may not, not be equal constitutional issues,but that has yet to be determined as of this date.