Тег: Quarantine

Democracy and liberalism will not limit a stationary bandit in violence

When discussing the issue of state violence and the restriction of freedom, one sometimes encounters the argument that this is not such a big problem, since in the modern world of democracies and liberalism, most states are limited in their ability to use force and violate the freedom of their citizens, and in this, they cannot cross a certain line. But in reality, no institutional factors prevent even the most democratic and liberal states from turning into brutal dictatorships. As long as they are stationary bandits and can “legitimately” use the instrument of violence, as long as they have agents capable of committing violent acts, and ordinary people have neither the right nor the possibility to resist violence, a tightening of social orders can be fully expected, provided there is only a pretext for it.

And recently, such a pretext appeared – the coronavirus pandemic. Of course, the pandemic must be fought, but the primary method chosen for this by many states was precisely violence and the forced restriction of freedoms. Moreover, there was no sense in such harsh measures, based on research on the effectiveness of different measures in the fight against the pandemic; also, using the example of Sweden, which has already returned to pre-COVID life, I showed how informing and encouraging less risky behavior ultimately yield better results than strict control and bans. Forceful coercion is a less effective tool in implementing any measures, unless coercion and the restriction of freedom is the goal in itself.

Before continuing the topic of COVID measures, I would like to recall one example of how states effectively destroyed the freedom of movement around the world by introducing passport and visa control. The pretext for this was the First and Second World Wars, during which states needed to control the movement of people. Was the control lifted after the wars ended, i.e., after the pretext for it disappeared? It was not! States took the opportunity to forever make any movement of people beyond the borders of their own “pens” strictly controlled.

During the coronavirus pandemic, borders turned out to be completely closed, but the essence of the matter is not only in that. In many countries, people were literally locked in their homes, deprived of work, and their movements were monitored, for example, using COVID apps. Now, a telling example of the implementation of such a policy is Australia, where people deprived of freedom literally have to fight with police, their movements are tracked by the state via a smartphone app, and violators of COVID norms face imprisonment and fines. Also, in many countries, police can easily beat and detain you, for example, for the lack of a mask or a vaccination passport (I am attaching a recent case from France to the post). This is also true for Russia, where police have already beaten and brutally detained people without masks many times.

Now I want to ask one question: is it possible to believe that after the pandemic ends, states will truly lift all restrictive measures and return to people the same freedom they had before? As far as I am concerned, relying on this would be great naivety. Of course, some freedoms will be returned, but at the same time, states will most likely retain some of the control. It is unlikely to be like in Sweden, where all COVID measures except for border ones have already been lifted, since this country did not rely on harsh coercive measures from the start. By the way, borders after the pandemic may also remain more controlled than before it, and it is quite likely that in this case, even Sweden will no longer be an exception. In general, one should not rely on the idea that for some miraculous reason states will not punish their citizens with police force, deprive them of freedom, and strictly control them simply because they are developed democracies. The question is not so much about political and social institutions as it is about the willingness and ability to commit violence.

Harsh coercive measures have failed again

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Considering the concept of harm reduction, I have already shown why the best result is achieved not through prohibition and accusation, but through awareness and attempts to encourage a person toward less risky behavior. For example, the needle exchange program during the AIDS crisis in the 80s, which allowed drug users to take fewer risks by using fresh syringes instead of the same ones repeatedly and sharing them among several people, proved to be much more effective than strict prohibitions. Program participants began to use drugs less frequently, their health improved, and many of them eventually voluntarily sought help for addiction treatment.

Similarly, awareness and encouraging people toward less risky behavior could have been used instead of harsh coercive measures in the fight against coronavirus. Unfortunately, most governments chose the second method. However, it is good that not all of them decided to resort to force and strict prohibitions, so we can easily compare the results of these approaches. Research on the impact of strict measures, light measures, and all measures combined on the growth of infections has already long shown that both types of measures produce approximately the same effect. This means that the introduction of harsh coercive measures is unnecessary, or even harmful, given their consequences for social and economic life.

Sweden is a good example. From the very beginning of the pandemic, it refused to introduce harsh and coercive measures within its country; even the wearing of masks, which was mandatory almost worldwide, remained only recommendatory in Sweden. Initially, the number of infections and deaths greatly exceeded the corresponding figures in other countries (though in reality, this was not the case in all instances; for example, they were quite comparable to the figures in France). However, it was already clear then that compared to other countries, Sweden’s economy would suffer less and recover faster after the pandemic. And importantly, the last wave of the pandemic, which put many countries in a critical position, had almost no impact on Sweden. By the way, the inspiration for writing this post was the comparison between the situation in Israel, where people are already being given a third dose of the vaccine, where covid passports are being actively implemented, and where there were multiple lockdowns, and Sweden, where there is and was nothing of the sort. At the same time, in both countries, the vaccination level for the first and second doses is approximately the same, but the situation is fundamentally different.

Slightly stricter measures were introduced in other Scandinavian countries—Denmark and Norway. The governments of these countries, of course, called these measures extremely harsh, but if compared to measures in other countries, they also seem quite mild. It is also worth mentioning an experiment conducted in Norway. Fitness clubs were considered breeding grounds for coronavirus, so they were closed at first. Later, 5 clubs were opened, allowing half of their clients to attend classes and the other half not to. As a result, over two weeks of observation, only one case of illness was registered, although it was in the group attending fitness clubs, but the infected person had not even managed to reach the sports facility. Also, the director of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health claims that the country could have gotten by without quarantine and achieved the same results. In general, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have already lifted all restrictive measures (except for border controls) and were the first in Europe to return to the life they had before the pandemic. Other countries are still very far from this.

Thus, we are once again convinced that awareness and encouragement of less risky behavior can achieve at least the same, if not more, than strict prohibitions, control, and force. And in general, a huge price will have to be paid for harsh measures in any case. So what is the point if, in the end, they cause more harm than good?

Libertarian Ethics of Coronavirus

Evil Pechenka

Original publication on tjournal.ru

An attempt to understand why quarantines and lockdowns are needed, how this looks from a libertarian’s perspective, and what to do in all this mess.

What happens if the epidemic is not contained?

Currently, there is a COVID-19 epidemic, the WHO has declared a pandemic, many countries are closing for quarantine (“Lockdown” — a ban on movement), and the economy is losing money. Many are asking: is this actually necessary? All these inconveniences, restrictions on freedoms, damage to companies, extra power for governments—is it justified?

Let’s look at what would happen if absolutely nothing was done.

According to our estimates, in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would lead to 7 billion infections and 40 million deaths worldwide this year.

“Global impact of COVID-19 and mitigation and suppression strategies“, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London.

So, 40 million will die, 7 billion will fall ill (almost the entire population of the Earth) — this means something like 0.57% of the population will perish. That’s a significant figure, but it’s not 80%, not 50%, and not even 10%.

Who are these people?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics

We see that these will be, predominantly, elderly people.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics

And also those with comorbidities: cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, cancer, hypertension.

So what does that mean? Sick elderly people will die, and the economy will not be particularly affected? Yes, that’s roughly how it works out.

Then why is quarantine needed?

It’s very simple:

If a suppression strategy is applied at an early stage (at 0.2 deaths per 100,000 population per week) and maintained, then 38.7 million lives can be saved.

“Global impact of COVID-19 and mitigation and suppression strategies“, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London.

That’s why. There is no vaccine, effective treatment is impossible, so there is such a measure — limiting contacts, which at the early stage of spread will help save nearly 97% of sick elderly people, according to the developed model.

So let’s understand — restricting movement is not about the economy, it’s about saving elderly people, most often those with comorbidities. The economy will not notice their absence.

What should libertarians do?

Libertarianism is not about ethics. Therefore, when we say “libertarian,” we are saying nothing about ethical norms or morality. On the other hand, we can expect a certain attitude toward the epidemic from libertarians.

Libertarianism suggests that each individual takes responsibility for themselves and their own life, rather than handing it over to a “rational government that knows best”; therefore, a libertarian is more independent and takes more measures on an individual basis.

A libertarian will likely make the necessary financial savings for a crisis, stock up on food, and purchase personal protective equipment in advance. This is very rational in order to ensure the safety of the object of responsibility — oneself.

Perhaps a libertarian will participate in various social initiatives: helping other community members, spreading truthful information, protection methods, and hygiene rules. Society is the area in front of the libertarian’s house, and like a good homeowner, they want to keep it clean and orderly.

It is quite possible that a libertarian will oppose attempts by the state to introduce stupid restrictions or excessively expand its powers, for example, banning marriage registrations or introducing total surveillance.

Will a libertarian follow a quarantine or lockdown? Most likely, they are already following it, as they don’t wait for “mom to say what is and isn’t allowed,” but make decisions themselves. And despite the fact that a libertarian opposes the form of communication “government ordered — people complied,” nevertheless, these bans changed nothing in their life.

Can a libertarian say “let the elderly die, the economy is more important”? Theoretically, they can; libertarianism is not about ethics. But such behavior is dangerous to the lives of others. In the event of causing harm, they will bear the burden of fines and other types of compensation, not to mention the reputational costs.

Restrictions on rights

1. Imagine a situation: a local epidemic of some infection suddenly breaks out in a hospital, and the doctors forbid you from leaving the quarantine zone. But in doing so, they are restricting your right to freedom of movement. How would such situations be resolved under ancap?

2. Consider this situation: in the summer, a child is lying/sitting in a car, crying, possibly suffocating from lack of air and heat; the parents went somewhere on business and forgot about them, and a passerby sees this and wonders what to do. Can they or the police break into the car or smash a window without permission, if the car is private property (which is inviolable under ancap)?

3. Is it permissible to cause damage to a person’s property that clearly threatens other people? Examples: a car with the handbrake on starts rolling toward another car, a tower leans due to age and is about to collapse onto neighboring buildings, etc. The nuance: there is no contact with the owner of the threatening property, or there is no time for it (the car is rolling).

I decided to combine three similar anonymous questions into one to avoid writing three similar answers.

In the first case, it turns out that exercising your right to freedom of movement could lead to significant harm to third parties, so you are asked not to insist on its exercise until it can be ensured that the threat has passed. In the second and third cases, causing damage to private property prevents harm to a third party. In all cases, you are simply presented with the fact of your rights being violated.

Where do rights come from? Rights arise from the interactions of some members of society with others. Some people agree to tolerate certain behavior of other people because they believe that those people have a right to such behavior.

Doctors believe they have the right to restrict your movement; they only need to convince others of this, and for this, they can use various methods. The most obvious and correct one: when you are admitted to a hospital, you sign a contract that outlines various boundaries, including force majeure situations like quarantine. Again, to ensure quarantine, doctors usually bring in specialists specifically for enforcement. Who will pay for this? As already mentioned in the post about epidemics, the most obvious interested party is insurance companies. They are the ones interested in ensuring the epidemic is prevented and the volume of insurance claim payouts is minimized; for this purpose, they can pay both those who enforce the quarantine and those caught in the quarantine—as compensation for the inconvenience. Or the insurance company may decide that the danger is small and will not introduce restrictions—those are its risks.

A passerby believes they have the right to encroach upon your private property to save a person; they only need to convince others of this. This is quite simple: they only need to demonstrate the rescued child to other passersby, and they will join the rescuer’s sincere indignation toward the jerk who left the child in the car, and perhaps even help in searching for the car’s owner.

General principles emerge from the generalization of private practice. They work well for typical situations and allow for the saving of mental effort. When two conflicting general principles collide in one head, a mental effort must still be made. It’s nothing terrible; the ability to think is always useful.

What to do about epidemics?

Currently, the state can (forcibly, of course) isolate a region where an outbreak of a particular infectious disease has occurred, while also taking preventive measures such as the culling of livestock. Thanks to this, it is possible to significantly hinder the spread of infection and avoid a large number of human casualties. Could the market possibly handle something like this?

анонимный вопрос

The concept of ancap is often criticized for proposing a multitude of private borders instead of a single intra-state space, which any landowner has the right to close at any moment. This criticism is countered by the fact that such a closure is, first of all, not profitable for anyone, and second, if one person goes crazy and closes their territory to passage, there will always be another who will only benefit from the traffic being diverted through them.

And now we have the opposite situation: many private borders, and those wishing to cross them, moving from the epicenter of an epidemic, pose a clear and unambiguous danger to the owner of the transit territory. Naturally, the owners will be interested in setting up checkpoints. Who will come to their aid? Of course, insurance companies, for whom every epidemic is a heavy financial burden, and if it can be localized in some way, they will make every effort to do so. Finally, meat producers from uninfected territories are, on one hand, interested in ensuring that this epidemic does not affect their herds, and on the other, will be glad if their competitors’ livestock numbers decrease, as this will increase their profits. Therefore, they will also willingly finance quarantine measures, veterinary control, and the slaughter of infected livestock. To ensure that neighbors do not stubbornly resist or cheat, they will likely even agree to establish some kind of mutual aid fund to compensate them for part of the losses from the sanitary slaughter.

So the market, unlike soulless salaried bureaucrats, will react to such cataclysms far more vividly and diligently.