Mar 2, 2007
Typhoid Robert
KVOA TV reports, A young man infected with an especially virulent strain of tuberculosis has been held for the past eight months in a hospital jail ward under a court order, and may be held until he dies. Robert Daniels has not been charged with a crime, but the 27-year-old violated the rules of a voluntary quarantine, exposing others to a potentially deadly illness. Maricopa County public health officials then got a court order to keep him locked up. (Some voluntary quarantine; obey it or be imprisoned. This is a definition of the word "voluntary" with which I am unfamiliar.)
The story raises the fascinating issue of whether the imprisonment of an innocent but potentially deadly young man can be justified.
Libertarian theory gives a clear answer. The imprisonment is not and cannot be justified. The young man has committed no crime; he is a self-owner with the same individual right to freedom as anyone/everyone else.
For the sake of argument, however, let's up the ante. Let's assume he is not just a potential threat to people who are vulnerable to this strain of tuberculosis but that everyone who comes into contact with him will die. I would advocate some form of isolation -- forced if necessary -- but I would not and could not justify it on libertarian principle. My advocacy of using force would rely on the fact that the Typhoid Mary/Robert scenario destroys the intellectual framework of libertarianism. In other words, libertarianism rests on the political worldview of rights being universal -- possessed in equal measure by all human beings. My exercise of a right does not interfere with your ability to exercise the comparable right. For example, my right of free conscience -- the freedom to reach my own conclusions about morality, religion etc. -- in no way prevents you from exercising your judgment on similar matters. This framework is sometimes called "Lockean." It contrasts with a "Hobbesian" worldview by which human beings are in a state of nature, a war of all against all; that is, my life requires your death. Within a Hobbesian world, individual or universal rights make no more sense for human beings than they do for wild animals whose lives are a natural cycle of being both predator and prey.
In short, libertarian principles make sense only within the context that is specifically stripped away by Typhoid Mary. The situation does not destroy the validity of libertarianism, which continues to address 99.99% of all situations in life and 100% of those most people will confront. Nor does the situation place libertarianism at a disadvantage relative to other political theories since none of them provides a good answer to Typhoid Mary or lifeboat situations. The dynamic of situation does mean, however, that in the absence of libertarian principles I will fall back on the default justification of protecting my own life and the lives of those for whom I care. I would interfere with the young man's freedom as little as I possibly could to achieve my goal...but interfere I would. I would not appeal to the State because giving such power to that pack of snarling dogs would end up with my being badly bitten. But I would assist another party in ensuring the isolation.
Another thing I wouldn't do? As stated earlier, I would not justify any of my actions through an appeal to libertarianism. No such justification is available.
You are invited to browse and join http://www.wendymcelroy.com/smf a libertarian BB that I moderate.
The story raises the fascinating issue of whether the imprisonment of an innocent but potentially deadly young man can be justified.
Libertarian theory gives a clear answer. The imprisonment is not and cannot be justified. The young man has committed no crime; he is a self-owner with the same individual right to freedom as anyone/everyone else.
For the sake of argument, however, let's up the ante. Let's assume he is not just a potential threat to people who are vulnerable to this strain of tuberculosis but that everyone who comes into contact with him will die. I would advocate some form of isolation -- forced if necessary -- but I would not and could not justify it on libertarian principle. My advocacy of using force would rely on the fact that the Typhoid Mary/Robert scenario destroys the intellectual framework of libertarianism. In other words, libertarianism rests on the political worldview of rights being universal -- possessed in equal measure by all human beings. My exercise of a right does not interfere with your ability to exercise the comparable right. For example, my right of free conscience -- the freedom to reach my own conclusions about morality, religion etc. -- in no way prevents you from exercising your judgment on similar matters. This framework is sometimes called "Lockean." It contrasts with a "Hobbesian" worldview by which human beings are in a state of nature, a war of all against all; that is, my life requires your death. Within a Hobbesian world, individual or universal rights make no more sense for human beings than they do for wild animals whose lives are a natural cycle of being both predator and prey.
In short, libertarian principles make sense only within the context that is specifically stripped away by Typhoid Mary. The situation does not destroy the validity of libertarianism, which continues to address 99.99% of all situations in life and 100% of those most people will confront. Nor does the situation place libertarianism at a disadvantage relative to other political theories since none of them provides a good answer to Typhoid Mary or lifeboat situations. The dynamic of situation does mean, however, that in the absence of libertarian principles I will fall back on the default justification of protecting my own life and the lives of those for whom I care. I would interfere with the young man's freedom as little as I possibly could to achieve my goal...but interfere I would. I would not appeal to the State because giving such power to that pack of snarling dogs would end up with my being badly bitten. But I would assist another party in ensuring the isolation.
Another thing I wouldn't do? As stated earlier, I would not justify any of my actions through an appeal to libertarianism. No such justification is available.
You are invited to browse and join http://www.wendymcelroy.com/smf a libertarian BB that I moderate.