By MoneyMorning.com.au

I recently returned from a business trip to the US.

My trip involved travelling in what I now call the Ebola Triangle.

I arrived in Dallas, Texas. This is where the first and only US patient died from Ebola.

I caught a connecting flight to Baltimore, Maryland. That’s not far from the National Institutes of Health, where the government quarantined the nurse who treated the deceased patient.

A few days later, I travelled to New York, dropping the hire car off at Newark International Airport. This is where the New Jersey government quarantined an aid worker who recently returned from Liberia.

I left New York on 22 October. Today is the 3rd of November. Ebola has a 21-day incubation period. That means in 11 days I’ll be officially in the clear. Who wants a hug…?

To say that the US media was in a high state of frenzy about Ebola is an understatement.

It was the lead story on the main news channels each night. And now this news breaks, as reported in the Washington Post:

‘The U.S. Ebola debate Thursday centered on a small town in Maine, a governor vowing to use the “full extent” of his power to quarantine a humanitarian nurse, and the defiant nurse herself taking a rogue bicycle ride.

‘Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) said he plans to turn to legal measures to force Kaci Hickox, who recently returned from treating Ebola patients in West Africa, to remain quarantined at her home until any risk she might be infected with the virus has passed.

‘LePage said negotiations with Hickox and her attorneys had broken down “despite repeated efforts by state officials” to find a compromise, such as allowing her to go outside while keeping her distance from public places or other people. In a statement, he said that because Hickox “has been unwilling to follow the protocols,” the state would seek legal authority to restrict her movements until the period for possible infection has passed.’

Hmmm. Interesting. On the surface, this puts libertarian-minded people in a tricky spot. All forms of government oppression are bad. But what if someone is putting others at risk?

Shouldn’t the government have the right to infringe on an individual’s freedom in order to protect others?

Let’s see…

This should be easy to figure out if we abide by John Stuart Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’. It reads:

‘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.’

It’s a slam dunk.

The governor of Maine has the right to use power against Kaci Hickox’s will in an effort to prevent her from harming others.

Easy. Or is it?

Perhaps it isn’t that easy. At what point can a government decide that someone could harm others? It suggests that authorities have the right to use pre-emptive action.

And if you agree with the use of pre-emptive action, at what point should the government be able to use it?

To use a different scenario…

• Is it at the point where one man is about to thrust a knife into the chest of another man?
• Is it at the point where the man is simply brandishing the knife?
• Is it at the point where the man has his hand on the knife in his pocket?
• Is it at the point where the man is thinking about taking the knife from his pocket?
• Is it at the point where the man starts to approach the other man?
• Is it at the point where the man decides he will seek out the other man to stab him?
• Is it at the point where the man is at home thinking about whether or not to stab the other man?
• Or…is it at the point where the thought hasn’t even entered the first man’s mind?

It’s not an easy problem to solve. But there is a solution.

As a fanatical free market, anti-government, libertarian, I see no role for government.

Some libertarians will say that we need the government for matters such as law and order, and defence. I argue that even in these fields the private sector can do a much better job than the government.

Take defence as an example. Which defence (from the Iraqi perspective) has been more effective against enemy (US) attack, government or private sector?

There’s no doubt on the answer. The government forces folded in about a month. The ‘private armies’ have fought against the US for the past 11 years. The US is no closer to winning today than they were 11 years ago.

Besides, the simple fact is that governments — all governments — either are or become tyrannical and oppressive regimes given enough time.

Even the great men behind America’s independence from King George III’s tyranny didn’t take long to define what they ‘really meant’ in the US Constitution — ‘Yeah sure, that’s what it says, but what we meant was…’

In short, you can never put faith in any government of any colour.

So the answer to the problem is a private sector and libertarian solution. If Kaci Hickox wants to roam around Maine on her bicycle, she should be free to do so. As long as she doesn’t do anything that causes harm to other people.

Rather than forcing her into government quarantine, she should know that if she intentionally or inadvertently infects others then those she infects would have the right to sue her for damages and medical costs.

At the moment, she doesn’t face any jeopardy. If she infects someone else, what does she care? It won’t affect her.

But in a free and private market where there is the right to sue someone for damages in a private court, where the plaintiff could suffer the loss of personal wealth, I’m sure that would be enough to convince Kaci Hickox to keep the bike on the rack and spend a few days convalescing at home instead.

I know conservatives will lash out at this idea. But conservatives always do. They talk out of one side of their mouth about free markets and small government, and then talk out of the other side of their mouth about banning this that and the other and egging on the government to interfere in things the conservatives don’t like.

The socialists will probably have a similar view. They’ll say Kaci Hickox is an example of selfishness and all that’s wrong with giving people too much freedom.

I say ‘boo’ and ‘sucks’ to both of them. Governments are tyrannical. Give them just one inch to say that they can put one person under house arrest even though they haven’t committed a crime and before long they’ll expand this power further.

If you want proof of how governments routinely do this, look no further than the history of the income tax. It started as a small impost to ‘tax the rich’. Now, taxes of all shapes and sizes mean that the government makes up around one-third of the Australian economy.

Give governments an inch on this one, and they’ll take more. In a truly free society, Kaci Hickox would have the right to ride her bike without threats of imprisonment from the government, but it would be in the full knowledge that if she harms anyone she would have to pay the price.

Kris Sayce+,
Publisher, Port Phillip Publishing

Ed Note: The above article was originally published in Pursuit of Happiness.

Join Money Morning on Google+

The post All Governments Turn To Tyranny appeared first on Stock Market News, Finance and Investments | Money Morning Australia.

By MoneyMorning.com.au