EXTRAORDINARY AH Teaching from Spiritual Hierarchy
  NEW READERS! Read Here First
  Supporting AH
  Leadership of AbundantHope
  Regional AH Sites
  Other Sites with AH material
  Contact Us
  Becoming A Messiah
  Mission Ideas
  System Busting
  Cleric Letter/English
  Translations of Cleric Letter
  AH Member Writings
  Brian's Poetry
  Telepathic Messages
  Jess Anthony
  Lucia G
  Targeted Messages
  Light Flower
  Changing The Face Of Religion
  - Phoenix Journals - PDF in German
  Candace on Religion
  Other Spiritual Pieces
  Spiritual Nuggets by the Masters
  Phoenix Journals
  Phoenix Journals - PDF
  Telepathic Messages PDF books
  Selections from the Urantia Book
  Illustrations For The Urantia Book
  CMGSN Pieces
  David Crayford and the ITC
  Health and Nutrition
  Podcasts, Radio Shows, Video by AH
  Political Information
  True US History
  Human/Animal Rights
  The Miracle That Is Me
  911 Material
  Books - eBooks
  government email/phone #'s
  Self Reliance
  Alternative News Sources
  Art and Music
  Foreign Sites
  Health and Healing
  Human/Animal Rights
  Vegan Recipes
  Translated Material
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Jess
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Candace
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Anderen
  Canal Jess
  Par Candace
  Other Channels
  Telepathische Nachrichten (Candace)
  Telepathische Nachrichten (Jess)
  Telepathische Nachrichten (div.)
  AH Mitgliederbeiträge (Candace)
  AH Mitgliederbeiträge (Jess)
  Spirituelle Schätze
  Translations - Candace
  Translations - Jess
  Translations - Others
  by Candace
  By Jess
  By Others
  Anfitriones Divinos
  Bitácoras Fénix
  Creadores-de-Alas (WingMakers/Lyricus)
  Escritos de Candace
  Escritos de Otros
  Telemensajes de Candace
  Telemensajes de Jess Anthony
  Telemensajes de Otros
  By Candace
  By Jess
  By Others
  Korean Translations
  Hungarian Translations
  Swedish Translations

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Political Information Last Updated: May 28, 2020 - 5:36:36 AM

COVID Ethics: It's Immoral To Confine Innocent People Who Might Be A Threat
By Philipp Bagus with comments by Ron
May 28, 2020 - 2:36:01 AM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page Share/Bookmark

May 27th 2020

A few weeks ago I presented a libertarian take on the ethics of the lockdown. Following Murray Rothbard in his Ethics of Liberty, I argued that the government has no right to confine or quarantine innocent people, even though it might lengthen some lives. The government is not the just owner of the streets. Rather citizens or taxpayers are, and consequently have the right to use their streets.

Moreover, anyone is innocent until proven guilty and cannot just be assumed to intentionally be infecting others with a deadly virus.

[Ron: Governments' confining healthy people at home because they might become infected and might act negligently is TYRANNY.  IF those possibilities are sufficient justification for confining people under house arrest are considered  valid then the same arguments could be used to confine people at home in order to prevent them driving on public roads since deaths and injuries are regularly being inflicted thereon by accidents; AND also through deliberate negligence like drunk driving.].

However, there are some who claim the moral high ground and maintain that it is unethical to leave one's house during the corona epidemic. Their argument is that by leaving one's house one could contribute to the transmission of a deadly virus. People can be confined during a pandemic such as the present one, because they are (potential) aggressors. Anyone could unknowingly carry the virus and transmit it, and therefore poses a potential threat to the health of others.

My reply is that preemptive violence cannot be justified against someone who is just a potential aggressor. One must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that someone is infected and wants to infect others. It is unethical to use defensive violence without having proven an imminent attack.

The question of street use is easier in a free society. As everything is private property in a free society, owners would establish rules for the use of their property, including streets. Note that people in their right minds would secure access rights before buying or renting a property and could not simply be denied access to or egress from their property in an epidemic.

As long as streets are not fully privatized, however, the question remains: Should there be any restriction on the use of streets for their owners, the citizens? It seems reasonable not to allow negligent behavior when it endangers the private property of others, such as other street users.

For example, a drunk driver who is not in control of his car and does not keep a prudent distance could be considered to be acting negligently, and it seems to be justified to pull this driver over. Applying this reasoning to the corona epidemic, someone who is infected with the virus and does not keep far enough away from others or sneezes in the street without covering could be asked to take precautions or be sent back to his property. What is clearly unjust and disproportionate is to prohibit everyone from driving because of the mere possibility of negligent driving, or to quarantine everyone because there's a risk of infection.

To make the point more pronounced I will apply this reasoning to a useful example provided by Walter Block: imagine someone aiming a deadly arrow at a tree on his property. The assumption is that if he misses his target, the arrow will fly into his neighbor's property, possibly hurting innocent people. Is shooting the arrow negligent behavior that should be stopped? Depending on the exact circumstances, so it seems. However, it does not justify quarantining the general population. First of all, not everyone owns a bow and arrow. Similarly, today not everyone has the virus and can "shoot" it at others. Second, not everyone who owns a "bow and arrow" (is infected) "shoots" (spreads germs) negligently in the direction of their neighbors.

If confining everyone because they could become infected, and in addition could act negligently, is justified in the case of the epidemic, one can make an analogous argument in the case of the bow and arrow: anyone could in principle purchase a bow and arrow and could in principle shoot arrows negligently. Hence, anyone is a potential "arrow threat" and everyone must be locked up in their homes. Or, alternatively, the sale of bows and arrows must be prohibited. However, this clearly violates private property rights. The violators of private property rights, far from occupying the moral high ground, must be considered criminals.

If we allow the use of violence against innocent people because they are a potential risk or threat to others, then there will be virtually no limit to the coercion that can be justified. For instance, in World War II the US government interned Japanese people and US citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps, because these citizens were assumed to be a threat. They were expected to commit acts of sabotage killing innocent people. Possibly these acts of sabotage would encourage others to copy these acts, leading to more and more acts of sabotage and the loss of the war. Even if we grant that there was a higher risk that US citizens of Japanese ancestry would commit such acts, this does not justify the internment of innocent people. One must prove that someone is planning to commit an act of sabotage. The proof must be presented for each individual. Responsibility is individual, never collective. If we allow violence based on collective guilt, there is no limit to violence.

Why not, as a preemptive measure, lock up ethnic groups that have had a higher probability of committing crimes in the past than other groups? When we allow violence against someone who is considered a threat based on statistics, there is no limit to violence.

And what about other infectious diseases? If infecting others with the coronavirus is an aggressive act, what about infecting others with the flu or a mild cold. A mild cold can develop into a severe problem for someone with a weak immune system. These are just differences of degree. If one of these instances is an aggression and immoral, the others are, too. What is a fair punishment for someone who spreads a cold? Shall we quarantine the whole population every winter because thousands die from the flu? If we follow this reasoning, there is no limit to violence.

Why not confine the whole population all the time? It saves lives (or could save at least some lives in the short run). There always exists a risk that someone will catch a new, unknown virus, let's say COVID-20, and will infect others, becoming an "aggressor." Following this reasoning, anyone is a potential threat to anyone else-just by being alive and in contact with others, because he may spread bacteria and viruses. There is no limit to this reasoning.

We live in nature and with things that we do not control completely. Unfortunately, accidents also occur. Life is risky. Let's suppose that a driver's tire was punctured on the highway, leading to an accident that hurt others. The person was a careful driver whose car had recently passed inspection. What happened was not due to the driver's negligence, but an accident. It certainly does not justify prohibiting all driving. Is the transmission of a cold, flu, or the coronavirus not often more akin to an accident than a criminal act? If we cannot prohibit driving because of the possibility of accidents, we cannot quarantine people because they could accidently spread a cold or flu.

Let us take another scenario from driving. What if someone tries to cross a highway on foot or in a wheelchair and is hit? Is the solution to oblige everyone to drive five miles per hour on highways from then on because there exists the possibility that someone in a wheelchair might try to cross and could get hurt? It makes more sense to create a crossing for those who are in danger of being hit, or for them to find safer paths to their destinations. In the case of the corona epidemic, older people with preexisting illnesses can take precautionary measures and isolate themselves if they want to. If we allow violence to be employed against innocent people because someone else may benefit from it, there is no limit to the violence that can be employed.

In sum, just the possibility of an "aggression" does not justify the violation of private property rights. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. Violence against innocent people is unethical. Once we allow aggression against innocent people, such as a lockdown or general quarantine, we are on a slippery slope with no limits.

[Comments in square brackets added.].

All writings by members of AbundantHope are copyrighted by
©2005-2020 AbundantHope - All rights reserved

Detailed explanation of AbundantHope's Copyrights are found here

Top of Page

Political Information
Latest Headlines
NFL Races To Sign Supreme Court Justices Called World’s Best Punters—World War III May Happen First
Was The American Revolution A Mistake ?
Pedophilia in High Places: The Jewish Connection
Pro-abortion Guttmacher Accidentally Proves Trump Was Right to Pull US Out of WHO
Theologian : Vatican 2 Justifies Hagia Sophia As Mosque
Biden-Sanders “Unity Task Force” Reveals Radical Freedom-killing Climate Agenda
The SPLC and Transgender
Why Is The US Army calling its commander in chief's campaign slogan 'white supremacist' ?
And The Nobel Prize For Medicine Goes To... Bill de Blasio, who has discovered Covid-19 spreads everywhere except at BLM protests
"Defund The Police" Just Means "I'm Rich & White"
LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir
German Authorities Claim People Smugglers Tracking NGO Ships and Directing Migrants to Them
How Many Ways can Israel Wage War on Iran before the media reports Israel is Waging War on Iran ?
"I Could Live With That": How The CIA Made Afghanistan Safe For The Opium Trade
The Lancet Freaks out over U.S. Withdrawal from W.H.O.
Cyberwarfare – Britain’s Latest Choice to Wage War “Blitzkrieg”-Style
Satanic Temple Threatens to Sue Mississippi if Flag Says ‘In God We Trust’
As Long As Mass Media Propaganda Exists, Democracy Is A Sham
Turning Hagia Sophia into a Mosque Will Harm Christian-Muslim Trust, hit Tourism & turn West Against Erdogan
Is George Washington in Heaven ?