How would an anarcho-capitalist society respond to a major epidemic, such as the black plague/cholera/etc?
If there’s a government, they usually quarantine/evacuate people. Would infested people be running free and spreading diseases without government help?
What do you think?
What do you think?
What can government do that the market cannot?
I think I’d probably stay away from work.
The real question is, would the people who couldn’t pay get treatment.
Good thing there would be fewer people who couldn’t afford to pay since the state would no longer be annually siphoning off nearly half of the national income.
Quarantines only work if you catch the initial victims and lock them up away from everybody else. The FEMA model of trying to “quarantine” an infection after it has already begun spreading - by throwing uninfected into concentration camps with the infected - actually helps the disease spread even more rapidly. Avoiding population centers and other places where diseases are likely to be vectored is a crucial part of protecting oneself from the disease. Again, this goes back to a calculation/knowledge problem. Let individuals figure out for themselves how best to avoid infection. 100 million people each figuring out for themselves how to avoid getting infected will do a much better job of actually avoiding infection than a few dozen “experts” at CDC and FEMA handing out dictates enforced through Federal goon squads.
Clayton -
Good thing there would be fewer people who couldn’t afford to pay since the state would no longer be annually siphoning off nearly half of the national income.
Ask yourself, does that answer the question?
Compared to a thief’s “guarantee”, yes.
What I’m afraid of the most is the containment part, in the absence of force containment by FEMA or whatever, wouldn’t infested people just be running around infecting other people? That’s the big question. How do you contain the spread without government? Don’t you think it’s much better to have containment then let individual “figure it out”? I mean, if you’re infested but you have a family to feed, you’d want to go to work, but by doing so, you’d infect other people, etc.
I was just thinking about this because I just saw the news about the cholera outbreak, where people just spread the disease left and right.
They can use force to limit the negative externalities imposed by infectious individuals.
I, personally, would advocate quarantine and would compensate such persons (e.g., the compound might seem like a resort).
That is the ONLY thing the state has on the market. And some of us think it is a negative to use violence.
The market can do that. All the state does is take an externality, and make it even worse by redistributing it politically.
I agree, but I do think privatizing the functions of the CDC deserves more explanation than “the market can do that.”
Would you allow people with infectious diseases on your property? That is how to solve the epidemic.
Good point, but my main question is how would you contain the epidemic? Even if you don’t allow the infected on your property, he’ll just go elsewhere to infect others.
Do these others not have property?
Why?
The CDC wastes a ton of money every year. I mean, they just did a study (can’t seem to find the direct link right now) regarding how smoking in movies supposedly makes kids smoke more. I had two questions after reading it: (1) so what? and (2) who cares? A privatized CDC would more effectively use money because they would have a - wait for it - real budget.
Perhaps but then uninfected people would be maximally free to flee other, potentially infectious individuals and circumstances.
How do you contain it with government? Once an infection has spread to more than a handful of people, it can no longer be contained by any means, no matter how violent.
If you know you have all the vectoring individuals, then sure, contain them. Otherwise, you’re wasting your time. One infected individual who is not quarantined is enough to start the epidemic. Also, there’s no way to predict the severity of most epidemics. Look at how badly they overestimated the last swine flu.
But employers would be maximally free to exclude employees and uninfected employees would be maximally free to avoid the workplace or other places with potentially infected individuals.
Clayton -
That “maximally free to flee” is what i’m afraid of. If an epidemic breaks out, the entire economic activity of a region would be shut down in a matter of days, thus these people (infected or uninfected) would then try to flee to other places. I’m currently looking at the cholera outbreak unfolding and thinking about this. You’re right about the impossibility of predicting the severity, but perhaps containment is the best option is my eyes.
If there’s an outbreak in a city, I’d call in the national guard (yes I know in a true libertarian society this probably won’t exist) and have them contain the entire region. Set up a perimeter, isolate infected individuals, and then treat them. What do you think?
Would you allow people with infectious diseases on your property? That is how to solve the epidemic.
Yes shoot the diseased and hungry! What a Brave New World…