Walter Block on Quarantines Because of the Coronavirus

Dr. Walter Block

OM recently sent the following email to Dr. Walter Block:

Subject: Forced quarantine

Hello once again professor Block,

Due to recent Coronavirus outbreak many countries started forcing people into quarantine. I was wondering about the libertarian stance on this issue. I considered the person who is infected and knows that he is infected and doesn’t get checked into the quarantine to be violating NAP. Yet leaders of libertarian party in my home country Georgia consider the quarantine to be violation of human freedom. I was wondering about your position on this issue. Thank you in advance.

Dr. Block responded:

Dear Otar:

I support forced quarantines for the coronavirus. I disagree with Lew Rockwell and also Murray Rothbard (who is well deservedly known as “Mr. Libertarian”) on this issue: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/lew-rockwell/what-would-murray-say-about-the-coronavirus/

For me, the crucial statement is this: 

“It is important to insist, however, that the threat of aggression be palpable, immediate, and direct, in short, that it be embodied in the initiation of an overt act. Any remote or indirect criterion—any ‘risk’ or ‘threat’—is simply an excuse for invasive action by the supposed ‘defender’ against the alleged ‘threat.’” Murray hammers home the point later in the book. He says, “Once one can use force against someone because of his ‘risky’ activities, the sky is the limit, and there is virtually no limit to aggression against the rights of others. Once permit someone’s ‘fear’ of the ‘risky’ activities of others to lead to coercive action, then any tyranny becomes justified.”

When we apply what Murray says to the coronavirus situation, we can answer our question about forced quarantines. People are not threatening others with immediate death by contagion. Rather, if you have the disease, you might pass it on to others. Or you might not. What happens if someone gets the disease is also uncertain.

Where I depart from these two leaders of the libertarian movement is on the precise meaning of “palpable, immediate, and direct,”. I am an Austrian economist, as are, of course, both Lew and Murray. As Austrians, all three of us adhere to subjectivity as one of the very basic foundations of the entire praxeological school. Thus, I think, there is room for disagreement, while agreeing, fully, on the NAP of libertarianism.

I have written, here, of why people like the three of us can start from the same principles, all of us be entirely logical, rational, reasonable, and, yet, come to different conclusions:

Block, Walter E. and William Barnett II. 2008. “Continuums” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 151-166, June; http://www2.units.it/~etica/; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2008_1/BLOCKBARNETT.pdf

It is as if Lew and Murray are maintaining the that statutory rape age ought to be X, and I say it ought to be Y, where both X and Y lie somewhere in between 16 and 19. Principles, alone, cannot settle issue of this sort.

In similar manner, A is running at B with a knife, yelling he’s gonna kill B. B has a gun and can shoot A. But how close does A have to be to B before the latter is justified in shooting the former in self defence? Ten miles? Five miles? One mile? A half mile? A quarter mile? 200 yards? 100 yards? 200 feet? 100 feet? 50 feet? 10 feet? My point is, libertarian principles alone cannot determine the correct answer. According to subjectivism, “one man’s meat is another man’s poison.” Applying that insight to this case, I would say that 5 and 10 miles are way too far away for B to shoot A (B is a GREAT marksman). A is running and screaming, he’s gonna get too tired to shoot long before he gets to B. On the other hand, 100 feet is way too short. B should plug A before he gets to that point. But what is the precise point at which B may properly shoot A and claim self defense? I don’t know. I think you need (private!) courts to make such determinations. All I’m saying is that libertarian principles alone cannot determine the precise spot at which offense becomes defense. You need prudential judgement, and mine is different than Lew’s in this case. Hans Hoppe has eloquently made this point.

On the other hand Congressman Chuck Schumer just made threats against two Supreme Court judges. Schumer’s threat of physical violence against them was not palpable, immediate, and direct nor embodied in the initiation of an overt act. So, I agree with what I think Lew and Murray would say: these supreme court judges are not entitled to shoot the congressman. However, I think, in the free society, Schumer should pay a lesser penalty for this act of his (I’m now abstracting from all other issues, such as abortion rights, the legitimacy of the supreme court, etc.) Threats, too, are proscribed by the NAP. A, even when 10 miles away, should also pay a lesser penalty for this threat.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics      

Loyola University New Orleans