From a press release last week:
America's third largest party urged the White House Wednesday to more closely monitor crossings at the United States' border with Mexico, and keep out persons infected with "swine flu."
"The Libertarian Party Platform is clear, Libertarians support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property," said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee the Obama administration will not try to stop infected individuals from crossing the United States-Mexico border, claiming that since there are already isolated cases of the virus in the U.S, there is no need to try and stop widespread dissemination of the virus by newly-entered carriers in areas where it did not previously exist.
"I'm sure people across the United States appreciate the Obama White House announcing there is no need to stop the virus from being introduced to their community since it's already in places like New York and Houston," said Ferguson.
A Mexico City toddler who traveled to Texas with his family to visit relatives died in a Houston hospital Monday evening, the first confirmed death in the U.S. from swine flu.
"That is typical of the irresponsibility of the Obama White House," said Ferguson. "While doctors and hospitals should be focused on mitigating the virus here, as Secretary Napolitano stated, Barack Obama also has a responsibility to ensure infected people don't flee into the United States and spread the virus here."
"There is no reason to allow possibly infected people to cross the border. They can wait until they are cleared as healthy," said Ferguson.
In case you're new to the concept of libertarianism, this isn't it. This is the opposite, what is sometimes referred to as statism.
It's even more disturbing to see that the LP is here reacting to what may be a false panic, the sort of ruse that nannyists and statists of all stripes use to impose top-down controls on a free society. And amazingly, the LP is on their side.
They have been a mess for a while.
I have really lost faith in the LP. I know I am a bit more hardcore than many libertarian who don't consider themselves voluntaryists or anarcho-capitalists, but really at what point can you promote statism and still be considered "libertarian"? It seems to me the the LP has become a mockery of libertarian values.
Here is something to ponder: Flu vaccines have a shelf life of 3 years, how many years ago was it when the "bird flu" was a big story?
"Flu vaccines have a shelf life of 3 years"
flu vaccines are very specific to the strain of flu. Last year's vaccine may not be effective against the flu circulating this year. It takes about 6 months to prepare a vaccine for a strain once it has been identified.
I do see public health to be a valid purpose and activity of government, if that government is otherwise properly constrained.
So I'm going to have to disagree respectfully with the basic point of Walter's post: if we have identified a strong contender for 1918-all-over-again, and if border controls are timely and effective at keeping it out or lessening its impact, I assert its Constitutionality. That our surveillance (and Mexico's) is inadequate is a side matter.
It's that nagging "otherwise properly constrained" part that we lack. A President Barr calling for border controls would have my support. A President McCain or Obama would have to work hard make his case.
A government asserting that power would be obligated to due diligence in wielding it:
* good surveillance, good models of communicability, etc
... and not wielding it:
* it's already here at pandemic levels so border controls would be too late, therefore not lawful; or
* the pandemic has passed, the controls provide no further benefit, so they are no longer lawful.
Defending the border falls within the scope of traditional Libertarianism. The concept of no borders and no laws is called "anarchy." Anarchist states quickly fall prey to the first group wanting to take over the country.
The preservation of the state is one of the primary concerns of a Libertarian government.
From a distance, a Libertarian state seems a bit unbalanced. It says the government has no role in education. It has only a nominal role in health care, but it has a big role in unpopular activities like national defense, border control (when threats arise), law enforcement and other activities necessary to maintain a free society.
A couple or three points - first, defending the border is fine, when facing an armed threat. A disease is quite a different thing. I assume that if a libertarian is OK with closing national borders he will also be OK with closing state and county lines as well. That sort of action should not be taken lightly.
Secondly, libertarians of all people should know that closing borders is a fairly useless way do stop that spread of common things, as we've been observing in the decades-long war on (some) drugs.
Also, some things that are allowable under the constitution are not necessarily libertarian.
It's unfortunate that the "Party" part of LP makes this sort of diversion from principle inevitable.