There, I said it. Despite the hysterical masses who are just eating up this media hype that the human race is on the brink of Ebola-induced extinction, I hold – quite comfortably – that Ebola is not a serious threat to the US. Talk of closing borders is sensationalist over-reaction. Even IF we were in the midst of a true epidemic, my answer to the above posed question would remain a resolute ‘NO’. Here is why…
I recognize that everyone has a right to travel anywhere they wish so long as they are not trespassing on another persons property. The government has no authority to curtail this basic natural right – even in the event of a catastrophe. As it is, in the three cases of Ebola in the US, the government has messed up multiple times. The government – as always – is an utterly worthless, blitheringly idiotic monstrosity that fails even the most basic of tasks with the possible exception of hurting and killing people.
In the event of a serious Ebola outbreak, should travel restrictions exist? Would they help to slow the spread of the disease? Yes, I believe they should, and would slow the spread. No – I really did not just contradict myself. The travel restrictions should be implemented at the discretion of the providers of transportation services. This means airlines, cruise lines, cargo shipping companies, trucking, and train operators should be making the restrictions. Only they can do so in a non-aggressive way, by simply withdrawing service to the regions in crisis. Surely there will be a few who may continue to offer transport to those areas, but given the risk involved the fee for such service should be high enough to discourage most who would undertake the journey.
This would address travel to infected areas, but there would still be a mad rush to leave those areas. That is the primary cause of the recent calls for travel restrictions – to prevent travel from infected regions to healthy ones. How do we address this in a non-aggressionist manner? We simply kick the blithering idiot (government) out of the way, and allow property rights to be enforced. This would allow airports to individually restrict the acceptance of arivals from infected regions. Many major airports are owned by the city in which they reside. While complete privatization of the air traffic industry would be ideal, even allowing the individual cities to restrict flights would be better than the federal government banning travel altogether.
It is tempting to get caught up in the hype but we must always be weary of such situations. The state loves nothing more than a threat – credible or imagined – with which to leverage it’s will on the people. Calling for the state to exercise aggression against others is never moral and those who call for it should be held in the highest suspicion.
Unless otherwise expressly stated, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.considerliberty.com.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.