Question for the "anarchists" in the crowd.

[myrkul]

I don't know, in a lot of ways it seems wrong to deny even an ill man a safe harbor in a winter storm or a drink of water in a summer heat wave, but then feelings don't make for good public policy anyway.

History is full of tales of sick merchants being given a bed to recover in, only to die and pass on the disease to those around them. Of course, they didn't understand the vectors, at that time, either, so now it might be possible to be compassionate and safe at the same time.

[punningclan]

Unlike the Japanese interned in camps during WW2 Mary was causing harm whether she accepted that or not so both the Anarchists and the Libertarians would likely agree that she must be quarantined or rendered harmless in some way.

The OP argument seems to be suggesting that her right to work and freedom must be held higher than everyone else's right not to be killed in order to satisfy the NAP? Further it sugests that spontaneous order fails because the outcome of either idiom is the forced incarceration or ostracism of the dangerous individual simply because they don't know or don't care if they're dangerous.

What does federally mandated force do other than allow one group to overpower another or make you comfortable since you don't need to take responsibility for any of their decisions?

As an aside why is "anarchists" in the title in quotation marks?

[Fjordbit]

Mary was causing harm whether she accepted that or not

I'm pretty sure it was the typhoid and not Mary that was causing harm. This is a pretty important distinction because I don't see Mary as having violated the NAP. Ultimately, the people who were infected by her cooking were responsible for their own infection because they didn't demand an infection-free guarantee from the restaurant they were eating at. However, if there were such a guarantee in place, then it would be the fault of the restaurant for employing her when there was a risk of her being infected, and this leaves them open to the liability. If they did check with Mary on her condition, and she lied about it, then she has acted fraudulently and there are anarchist solutions for this.

Anarchism does require people to demand the safety they want, though. The power comes from the interaction at the time of trade. If people truly don't think that infectious diseases are a major issue with respect to eating out, they they will risk it. Otherwise, they will make the choice to demand their food sources will have liability.

[myrkul]

Mary was causing harm whether she accepted that or not

I'm pretty sure it was the typhoid and not Mary that was causing harm. This is a pretty important distinction because I don't see Mary as having violated the NAP. Ultimately, the people who were infected by her cooking were responsible for their own infection because they didn't demand an infection-free guarantee from the restaurant they were eating at. However, if there were such a guarantee in place, then it would be the fault of the restaurant for employing her when there was a risk of her being infected, and this leaves them open to the liability. If they did check with Mary on her condition, and she lied about it, then she has acted fraudulently and there are anarchist solutions for this.

Anarchism does require people to demand the safety they want, though. The power comes from the interaction at the time of trade. If people truly don't think that infectious diseases are a major issue with respect to eating out, they they will risk it. Otherwise, they will make the choice to demand their food sources will have liability.

The one flaw in your reasoning is that Mary worked as a cook in people's homes. No middlemen like a restaurant. Also, she didn't know she was infected, and even after being quarantined and informed that she was, continued to uphold that she was not, putting the responsibility not on the bacteria, but her.

[Fjordbit]

The one flaw in your reasoning is that Mary worked as a cook in people's homes. No middlemen like a restaurant. Also, she didn't know she was infected, and even after being quarantined and informed that she was, continued to uphold that she was not, putting the responsibility not on the bacteria, but her.

It's not a flaw in reasoning, it's a misunderstanding of the situation at hand, but the reasoning still is the same. It's the responsibility of the people hiring her to ask her if she has tested positive for this disease, or to check references to see if prior employes are sick, etc. If she deliberately misrepresents this, saying she was never told she had the disease or saying she didn't have prior employers (which is different from saying she doesn't want to provide references), then she would again be acting fraudulently. In a lot of anarchist societies, this would get you a trade ban which is effectively death by starvation.

Possibly some charitable group would offer to feed her if she agreed to quarantine herself.

[MoonShadow]

As an aside why is "anarchists" in the title in quotation marks?

Because not all flavors prefer that term, since it has negative connotations in certain circles.  It's also not literally accurate, since it literally means "no government" and not "self government".  Any particular individual can either govern himself, or he cannot.  He may not have ever been taught to govern himself, as is the present case with way too many publicly educated Americans; or he may have simply never accepted basic mores with which to govern himself with; or he simply may be mentally incapable of reliablely governing himself.  I can certainly accept that 98+% of the adult population is capable of self-governance from the age of reason (roughly 12, depending upon the person) till either death or senility, but it cannot be argued that those people actually will.  In a truly anarchist/libertarian/minimalist/volunteerist society, most crimes today won't be crimes and the crimes that remain will have immediate and permanent effects upon the violator; so it's not hard to imagine a society with a vanishingly small incidence of violent crime simply due to Darwinistic 'survival-of-the-least-offensive' forces.  Still, there will always be that vanishingly small percentage of people who are actually incapable of reliable self-governance, which is why I consider a truly anarchist society (The Probability Broach) to be impossible.  A more likely outcome would be voluntary self-identification, such as the 'phyles' concept (The Diamond Age).  Either way, we can't get there from here, so at some point we are going to have to transition through a harsh period of hightened suffering and violence, (Alongside Night) which is exactly the condition that Karl Marx suggested would be the best opprotunity for socialists to change the nature of socity itself into his dream world.  Obviously, history shows us that socialism doesn't work, but that same history also shows us that such retoric does work, if the true goal is snatching of power by a core of like minded sociopaths.  If any minimalist society is to ever become real, it's only possible if by a deliberate plan involving years of education and development.  Periods of civil unrest are unlikely to result in a peaceful & anarchist society and are very likely to result in a dictator (in fact, although not likely in name).

[myrkul]

If she deliberately misrepresents this, saying she was never told she had the disease or saying she didn't have prior employers (which is different from saying she doesn't want to provide references), then she would again be acting fraudulently. In a lot of anarchist societies, this would get you a trade ban which is effectively death by starvation.

Possibly some charitable group would offer to feed her if she agreed to quarantine herself.

This makes sense. Of course, it's questionable whether her employers ever asked, or even would have thought to ask.

[Fjordbit]

Of course, it's questionable whether her employers ever asked, or even would have thought to ask.

Yeah, but that's their fault, not hers. It remains the case that if this were really an important issue, then they would ask.  One can even argue that statism make people more vulnerable to being taken advantage of in several ways because people are not used to vetting their trading partners. This is one of the reasons why I feel Trendon Shavers was able to con so many people.

[myrkul]

Of course, it's questionable whether her employers ever asked, or even would have thought to ask.

Yeah, but that's their fault, not hers. It remains the case that if this were really an important issue, then they would ask.  One can even argue that statism make people more vulnerable to being taken advantage of in several ways because people are not used to vetting their trading partners. This is one of the reasons why I feel Trendon Shavers was able to con so many people.

You mean... when people don't have to take personal responsibility, they don't? 

I'd say it's their fault for the first set of illnesses, and hers for the second. The first ones, they should have asked, the second, she'd been informed, and even seeking employment in food service is a bad move.

[caveden]

Mary was causing harm whether she accepted that or not

I'm pretty sure it was the typhoid and not Mary that was causing harm. This is a pretty important distinction because I don't see Mary as having violated the NAP.

I believe you can argue that she was violating people's rights. You're responsible for your properties. If your dog escapes and hurt the neighbor's son, you're responsible. If your car loses its breaks all of the sudden, while parked, and end up running over some one, you're still responsible, even if you were not driving it. If your factory or nuclear plant leaks pollution and hurt people living nearby, you're responsible. And so on.

Mary was responsible for her body. Her body was the transporting a lethal disease. She could be deemed responsible.

I know a real case of a disgusting man who knew he had AIDS, and still would convince his sexual partners to drop the condom, obviously lying about his health situation. He managed to contaminate multiple women on the course of the years, on purpose. I mean, he wanted to infect the highest number of women possible. I consider this man is an intentional murderer - a serial killer if you will. And yet, there's no law or any recourse his victims could use to punish him.

All that said, I find the scenario presented by Murphy in his article more reasonable than a scenario in which victims would prosecute those who transmitted them the disease. For a start, it's hard to determine who gave you the disease. But yeah, if this second approach start being applied, insurances would probably cover your legal costs if you infect people. In such cases, these insurances would have an interest in isolating you from society once you get a transmittable disease, in order to reduce their expanses. Such quarantine could be foresee in your contract with the insurer, making it no longer coercive. There you have it, another potential solution to the problem. Both solutions may coexist.

[myrkul]

I know a real case of a disgusting man who knew he had AIDS, and still would convince his sexual partners to drop the condom, obviously lying about his health situation. He managed to contaminate multiple women on the course of the years, on purpose. I mean, he wanted to infect the highest number of women possible. I consider this man is an intentional murderer - a serial killer if you will. And yet, there's no law or any recourse his victims could use to punish him.

Actually, no... he can be (and people have been) prosecuted on murder charges for that. Likewise in a libertarian society, he would be treated as a murderer.

[FreeMoney]

A small group of people are currently killing thousands and imprisoning millions so... I'll take my chances with the sociopaths not having a veneer of legitimacy?

[Fjordbit]

I believe you can argue that she was violating people's rights. You're responsible for your properties. If your dog escapes and hurt the neighbor's son, you're responsible. If your car loses its breaks all of the sudden, while parked, and end up running over some one, you're still responsible, even if you were not driving it. If your factory or nuclear plant leaks pollution and hurt people living nearby, you're responsible. And so on.

Mary was responsible for her body. Her body was the transporting a lethal disease. She could be deemed responsible.

I feel that I agree that a disease in you body is your own property since it is an invader. A guy trespassing in my house might kill a guest there, but I don't think that I'm responsible. It would be different if Mary intentionally infected herself to then go on and intentionally infect others, but in this case she didn't even know.

I know a real case of a disgusting man who knew he had AIDS, and still would convince his sexual partners to drop the condom, obviously lying about his health situation.

And this would be a situation where he defrauded the women he was with, similar to if Mary was asked if she tested positive for some disease and fraudulently claimed not.

I just don't feel that the presence of the sick should in any way be taken as an immediate violation of the NAP.

[myrkul]

I believe you can argue that she was violating people's rights. You're responsible for your properties. If your dog escapes and hurt the neighbor's son, you're responsible. If your car loses its breaks all of the sudden, while parked, and end up running over some one, you're still responsible, even if you were not driving it. If your factory or nuclear plant leaks pollution and hurt people living nearby, you're responsible. And so on.

Mary was responsible for her body. Her body was the transporting a lethal disease. She could be deemed responsible.

I feel that I [dis]agree that a disease in you body is your own property since it is an invader. A guy trespassing in my house might kill a guest there, but I don't think that I'm responsible. It would be different if Mary intentionally infected herself to then go on and intentionally infect others, but in this case she didn't even know.

That analogy is not accurate. It would be more like a guest in your house (Mary's immune system had ceased fighting the disease, effectively coming to a truce) used a sniper rifle to kill people in your neighborhood. It's his doing, but if you let him stay, it's your fault if he keeps killing.

[Fjordbit]

That analogy is not accurate. It would be more like a guest in your house (Mary's immune system had ceased fighting the disease, effectively coming to a truce) used a sniper rifle to kill people in your neighborhood. It's his doing, but if you let him stay, it's your fault if he keeps killing.

How is an immune system giving up or being overpowered in any way like inviting someone in. It's not even a conscious act. If my intruder has me pinned down, it somehow makes him welcome and me liable?

[myrkul]

That analogy is not accurate. It would be more like a guest in your house (Mary's immune system had ceased fighting the disease, effectively coming to a truce) used a sniper rifle to kill people in your neighborhood. It's his doing, but if you let him stay, it's your fault if he keeps killing.

How is an immune system giving up or being overpowered in any way like inviting someone in. It's not even a conscious act. If my intruder has me pinned down, it somehow makes him welcome and me liable?

A carrier's immune system is not overpowered (that leads to death of the host), it has made peace with the disease. It may not be a conscious act, but neither is digestion. That disease is now part of her body.

[bb113]

That analogy is not accurate. It would be more like a guest in your house (Mary's immune system had ceased fighting the disease, effectively coming to a truce) used a sniper rifle to kill people in your neighborhood. It's his doing, but if you let him stay, it's your fault if he keeps killing.

How is an immune system giving up or being overpowered in any way like inviting someone in. It's not even a conscious act. If my intruder has me pinned down, it somehow makes him welcome and me liable?

A carrier's immune system is not overpowered (that leads to death of the host), it has made peace with the disease. It may not be a conscious act, but neither is digestion. That disease is now part of her body.

I don't think the concept of fault applies. The reality of the situation is that it is bad for the infected person to be around others until a solution is found, one way or another this problem will be dealt with. We see how the government dealt with it. It could be done better, but usually such decisions are made under uncertain conditions. Noone knows how infectious the disease is or the route by which it travels, etc. Ideally, symptomless carriers should be rewarded somehow.

[MoonShadow]

Proof enough that this is not a simple or settled problem.

[bb113]

Proof enough that this is not a simple or settled problem.

Couldn't this be taken as support for anarchism? The current methods have failed to solve it.

[myrkul]

I don't think the concept of fault applies. The reality of the situation is that it is bad for the infected person to be around others until a solution is found, one way or another this problem will be dealt with. We see how the government dealt with it. It could be done better, but usually such decisions are made under uncertain conditions. Noone knows how infectious the disease is or the route by which it travels, etc. Ideally, symptomless carriers should be rewarded somehow.

Fault definitely applies. Maybe not the first time the disease gets passed on, but once they've been told they're contagious, it's on them to see that it doesn't happen again.