Quarantines may be justified

Tim May timcmay at got.net
Fri Apr 18 13:04:01 PDT 2003


On Friday, April 18, 2003, at 09:21  AM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/science/sciencespecial/ 
> 18INFE.html?ex=1051243200&en=c0c66bc035169a16&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
>
> They put a police guard on one patient at a hospital and have hired  
> private security investigators to check on people in isolation.
>
> "This is a time when the needs of a community outweigh those of a  
> single person."
> Ontario's health minister, Tony Clement
>


I will make what some here will probably think is a totalitarian  
sentiment: under extreme conditions, I support quarantine measures.

Better yet, those seeking to avoid a disease should self-quarantine or  
isolate themselves. Or wear masks (I have a plentiful supply of 3M N95  
respirators, for example...better to buy them when they are dirt cheap,  
ahead of an emergency, than to be scrambling to buy them later).

A person who is known to be communicable is committing a kind of  
assault by spraying germs around. (Assuming the medical condition is as  
described.)

Though it is a serious step to limit a person's freedom to move about  
on public property, this is one of the few cases, along with  
imprisonment for criminal convictions, where it is justified.

I will gladly make this trade of liberties:

* roll back all of the bullshit laws designed to protect people from  
themselves: laws against smoking, laws against other drugs, laws  
banning sexual practices. And get rid of 90% of all government  
functions and staff in general: roll things back to 1925 levels, in  
terms of percentages. (I would favor reducing government further, but  
1925 levels would be a great start.)

in exchange for:

* infectious, communicable diseases may need quarantines


Provided the quarantine is only for medical reasons, and is never used  
to isolate people as punishment, for political reasons, for economic  
reasons, etc., it's an extreme measure which is consistent, I  believe  
with the Constitution. (And with anarchocapitalist principles, if we  
had such a system: one's insurers would likely insist on quarantine as  
a condition for continued coverage, for example.)

A larger principle is that those who are in risky locations and/or  
social situations pay for their increased risk. So a person in Kansas  
should not pay for my earthquake risks, nor I for his tornado risks. A  
person living in Oregon, where essentially few natural risks exist,  
would be rewarded for his choice and a person living in hurricane  
country would be punished for his choice.

Likewise, with disease.

--Tim May
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any  
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm  
to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient  
warrant." --John Stuart Mill





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list