Chapter 1: The Misunderstanding of Libertarianism

It's alarming when libertarianism is frequently scapegoated for societal issues. This narrative resurfaced recently in Paul Krugman's article titled "How Many Americans Will Ayn Rand Kill?" (online title: "When Libertarianism Goes Bad"; Oct 22, 2020). Krugman argues that libertarian ideals are contributing to rising COVID-19 cases and fatalities:

"There is an abundance of libertarian discourse emphasizing 'freedom' and 'personal responsibility.' Even politicians who advocate for mask-wearing and avoiding indoor gatherings hesitate to implement regulations, claiming it should be a choice made by individuals."

This assertion is misguided. Krugman criticizes individuals who refuse to wear masks and frequent bars, highlighting that such measures are primarily intended to safeguard others rather than the non-compliant. However, he seems quick to blame the Sturgis Rally in South Dakota for the increase in cases, neglecting to mention the summer protests for BLM. By excluding these protests, he may inadvertently favor one group's freedom over another's.

It is essential to uphold the rights of individuals to protest and gather freely. Medical studies have shown that COVID-19 predominantly affects the elderly, with 80% of deaths occurring in individuals aged over 65, establishing a direct correlation between age and mortality risk. Surprisingly, the New York Times expressed shock at the minimal COVID-19 cases reported in New York City schools, which aligns with existing data. Authorities should remain calm even if positivity rates rise.

The situation in schools illustrates how society can respond to the ongoing pandemic. If positive tests in schools increase, decisions should focus on the safety of elderly teachers, rather than automatically closing schools. Continued testing and public health measures are crucial. This exemplifies personal responsibility in a free society: older teachers or those at higher risk should consider avoiding in-person instruction to ensure that students can benefit from classroom learning.

This concept mirrors a policy proposed by three epidemiologists in the Great Barrington Declaration. This document advocates for 'focused protection' aimed at shielding vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, while allowing lower-risk individuals to resume their daily lives with necessary precautions. This strategy seeks to maintain economic activity and mitigate the adverse effects of lockdowns, especially on the youth, while safeguarding the most at-risk groups.

A science-based approach, grounded in principles like herd immunity and the importance of in-person education for mental health, should be the focus of discussion. Unfortunately, the politicization of science has led to straw-man arguments rather than constructive debate.

For instance, Will Wilkinson from the Niskanen Center labeled the Declaration as "useful libertarian idiocy," asserting that it suggests no actions are necessary beyond protecting the most vulnerable. He claims that lockdowns could cause irreversible harm if prolonged until a vaccine is available. While he accurately summarizes the Declaration’s intent, he misrepresents the potential outcomes, suggesting it would lead to chaos and the demise of vulnerable individuals.

Indeed, while some individuals may succumb to the virus, it’s crucial to weigh the risks of exacerbating mental health issues against those posed by the pandemic. Should we prioritize lockdowns every time cases rise? An analysis from the CDC indicates that despite increasing case numbers, COVID-19-related deaths remain stable, thanks to improved understanding of the disease, mask usage (up to 80% compliance), and advanced treatments. The unfortunate reality is that many vulnerable individuals have already succumbed to the virus.

Concerns about the impending vaccine's efficacy and availability are warranted. Developing a functional vaccine within the pandemic's timeframe is challenging, and even successful trials do not guarantee widespread efficacy. There is also a possibility that SARS-CoV-2 will become endemic, akin to influenza. Should we perpetuate restrictive policies indefinitely? Clearly, we have learned to manage influenza without such measures.

So, what would a small-l libertarian propose? First, no libertarian would advocate for sacrificing the elderly for the sake of younger individuals. They would agree that freedom does not equate to the liberty to infect others. Individuals were already taking precautions like wearing masks before any governmental mandates. Contrary to popular belief, people are capable of protecting themselves and others without state intervention.

The criticism directed at young people for wanting to socialize is hypocritical, especially when mass protests are deemed acceptable. While young individuals do take risks by socializing, the reality is that the vast majority do not face severe consequences from the virus. Should they exercise caution? Absolutely, but attempts to prevent young people from engaging in social activities are unrealistic.

Ultimately, the government has a duty to protect its citizens, especially those most vulnerable. However, this responsibility must also consider the dangers of exposing them to different threats. Striking a balance is challenging, but increasing restrictions is not a sustainable solution. Such a path suggests a defeatist attitude, as indicated by comments from the Trump administration regarding the virus's control.

Lockdowns should be a last resort, implemented only if hospitals are genuinely overwhelmed. Instead, we should aim for a balanced approach that includes rigorous testing, social distancing, masking, funding for vaccine development, and protecting the vulnerable by allowing remote work options. This is the libertarian approach to navigating the pandemic.

Chapter 2: Critical Reflections on Libertarianism and Policy

This video titled "Why Libertarianism Is Nonsense - Deconstructing Freedom" delves into the fundamental criticisms of libertarian principles and their implications in modern society.

In this video, "Why Libertarian Arguments Lose | Jordan Peterson," the complexities of libertarian arguments are examined, offering insights into their weaknesses and potential consequences.