13 votes

Should it be ok to quarantine a person with a highly contagious / deadly virus or force them into treatment?

Should it be ok for people who are highly contagious with a deadly virus to be forcefully quarantined or forced into treatment?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
wolfe's picture

Just being lethal...

Does not mean "lethal threat".

A man with a gun is "lethal". He is not a "lethal threat" until he points it at you.

Should we start imprisoning people with guns? Or castrating those with AIDS to prevent danger?

If someone, with AIDS, knowingly has sex with someone and transmits the disease, they are guilty of a vast number of crimes.

We imprison, detain or kill based on someone's actions, not on their potential actions.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Only, this person is pointing

Only, this person is pointing his gun in every direction and is firing it haphazardly to boot. Even if the person does not intend to harm, it still is roulette and pure chance if the gun doesn't go off in your direction. Take in mind that a diseased person with ebola is essentially 'leaking' bullets. That the person has no control over the direction of the bullets is even worse IMO.

I'm not sure you understand what ebola is. It's the virus most biohazard movies are based on. The most lethal version of the virus has a 90% kill rate. It's the virus known to turn a man into jelly. To envision this properly, a virus is basically hijacking your cells by injecting its own DNA into these cells. These cells are turned into zombie factories, where the cells produce even more virus. The virus army then "bursts" open from these cells and goes on its way to infect even more cells. This is how a virus propagates itself. Essentially, your body is being converted from human to virus. And the ebola virus is incredibly aggressive where this process is concerned. Hence, the "jelly".

wolfe's picture

I am aware.


"Only, this person is pointing his gun in every direction and is firing it haphazardly to boot."

This is an assumption on your part. What if the person locks themselves away, takes precautions and protects the people around them from themselves?

I assume your answer would be "unlikely". How likely isn't relevant, only what does and does not happen. If they put people at risk, then certainly they should be removed via quarantine or criminal charges... But until they do, they only have potential actions, not threats.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

If they lock themselves away

If they lock themselves away in a completely locked down environment (or seek professional help), they are not a lethal threat.
If they do not, they are, and subject to being sought out and killed out of self defense.
Simple really.

wolfe's picture


My point. Potential actions aren't threats until they are initiated.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

That shots are being fired in

That shots are being fired in every direction is not an assumption. Even when the person locks himself away, he's still firing his bullets. The person with ebola will not suddenly stop leaking bullets when he locks himself away. Because the bullets we are talking about is the virus itself. Even healthy people are leaving their bacteria all over the place.

Also, you are still underestimating the threat that is ebola. You are rationalizing something that is inherently a risk to the existence of mankind itself. Not an imagined risk that has been propagandized, but a real one for once. If that virus ever mutates and becomes airborne, we are totally fucked. You can kiss civilization goodbye.

When death is on your doorstep, rights are a luxury. Rights are only things that are useful when you can afford them. George Carlin really nailed it when he stated that rights are a imaginary concept. Some people seem to think that rights are these mythical things that can somehow protect oneself from reality itself. We only have rights, because we were granted rights for convenience sake.

If the person itself locks himself away, he still needs to be quarantined, because the person in question does not have the expertise to quarantine himself properly. He has no way of knowing that he did not infect another animal. His house would need to be burned down as well, to avoid any possible survival of the virus.

And it might even be that the virus requires no animal in order to survive. Viruses can often remain in a dormant state for quite awhile, until some triggers awakens them. There's still much unknown about them. It might even survive a fire for all we know if specific conditions are met.

wolfe's picture

Wow... So many falsehoods, so little time... :)

"Also, you are still underestimating the threat that is ebola."

Are you not aware of the black plague which decimated all of Europe and parts of Asia?

Are you not aware of the common cold, small pox, etc which wiped out vast numbers of North Americans?

How many has ebola killed in comparison?

"You are rationalizing something that is inherently a risk to the existence of mankind itself. If that virus ever mutates and becomes airborne, we are totally fucked. You can kiss civilization goodbye."

This is insane theatrics. There is and always has been a portion of humanity that is resistant to any given virus or bacteria, due to genetic diversity. There are people that are completely immune to HIV for example. Many people survived the black plague for similar reasons. This can be compared to a cloned species (banana "trees" are an example) which can lose every individual with one disease, and has happened.

Further, we heard the same theatrics about HIV and just about every "scary" disease.

"If the person itself locks himself away, he still needs to be quarantined, because the person in question does not have the expertise to quarantine himself properly."

Another assumption on your part.

"There's still much unknown about them. It might even survive a fire for all we know if specific conditions are met."

Now, you are just showing your lack of study on the subject. Fear is always born in ignorance.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Not fear. Proper respect for

Not fear. Proper respect for danger.

Anyways, I agree with your assesment that a part of humanity will probably survive. But that does not negate my argument that civilization itself could break down, because of a lethal virus outbreak. Humans might survive, civilization not necessarily so. We are much more numerous and connected than we were in the past. From what I understand, the climate currently is optimal for a virus outbreak compared to the past. The damage now could be much greater. I've read assessments before on such subjects. Even the black plague did not have the most optimal conditions to spread. A proper airborne virus with the strength of ebola would be disastrous in this day and age.

I will concede however that "threat to the existence of mankind" might be overly dramatic. But only stated this in such strong words, because your sentence about letting a person quarantine himself seems to me hopelessly naive, even if we assume that rights exist under such conditions. I just wanted to underline a threat that you seem to so casually dismiss. I know enough about viruses of this kind to know that you have to burn the place completely down in order to contain the threat or use chemicals. Don't really see an ebola patient doing this to his shelter, even if he survived his illness.

But let's assume that the ebola patient does know proper containment. If he has the necessary knowledge and expertise, I will agree that government containment is not necessary. But we need to be realistic here and also acknowledge that not many have that kind of knowledge to begin with.

Regarding a virus surviving a fire, you should not laugh about this. I've seen doctors talking about virus outbtreaks and some of these outbreaks are still a mystery. I remember one of them even suggest what you just laughed about. Viruses are not completely alive, this is why some thought it possible for it so survive outside living organisms.


I think you might be infected with a deadly strain of statism virus. My recommendation is to isolate oneself immediately and call the containment squad of your local fire department. A rare side effect is that you will talk out of your rear and defecate out your mouth. Seek a professional corporate health expert immediately and report to the re-education centers!

The cheese stands alone. The proof is in the pudding.

Aye aye captain!

Aye aye captain!

You guys all know about the Ebola outbreak, right?

An American, Sawyer collapsed in Nigeria and forced into quarantine.
Everyone he contacted in Nigeria was forced into quarantine.

He was close to coming back to the US to attend his daughter's birthday.

We were that close to an outbreak right here.

If he didn't collapse, did he have a right to fly back to the US?
And no, this isn't a Hollywood movie. This happened last week. The incubation period for Ebola is 2-21 days and is 60-90% fatal.


Check the Ebola outbreak here:


is watching way too many Hollywood movies. It would seem to me that government is the leading cause of death. At this point, the government is a virus that infects the masses, can we start by rounding them up for quarantine.

The cheese stands alone. The proof is in the pudding.

The biggest danger should be identified.

Microbial infections are opportunistic.

Government operatives plan their pillaging and position themselves to real the rewards.

Free includes debt-free!


Because when you say "quarantine" what you are really saying is "stealing money from people to pay some other people with guns to put some other people in a concentration camp."

You certainly have the right to tell anyone to stay off your property whether they have a disease, or a religion, or bad taste in clothes, or because they gave you the stink eye.

You have the right to tell people someone else has a communicable disease, and they in turn have a right to associate or not. If they don't pay attention, too bad for them.

If the disease is airborne then there is no good resolution. Someone's rights are going to be violated. If you want not to be in that situation then you need to innovate. But if you kill the contagious who are only a risk to you by virtue of their existence it is not a virtuous project. (this is the problem with abortion)

Pretending that killing innocent people because they pose a risk to you, through no fault of their own is not a violation of rights is (deont) immoral and (conseq) impedes the proper incentive to devise systems that avoid this situation occurring in the first place.

Killing innocent people is wrong. Because they are born in a country whose government is hostile in which they have no choice, or because they have a communicable disease in which they have no choice. They may pose a rights violation against you by their very existence. You may act. That doesn't mean you aren't violating rights.

Sometimes, like abortion or an innocent with a contagious disease, rights have to be violated by one party or the other.

The path to morality is to not pretend this is not so. If you accept that the simple solution (for you) is as much a violation of rights as the other guy may pose against you, that understanding is the motivation to avoid and prevent those situations in the first place.

If you don't want to be in the situation where it is violate or be violated, then it is your responsibility to do something. Use contraception if you don't want to be faced with the choice between killing a baby or being enslaved to it for nine months. End the FDA if you want actual cures for diseases to be created. Don't neglect your professional/work life if you don't want to end up broke and dependent on theft from others. Don't willingly support governments if you don't want to see punishment for non crimes turn people into dangerous criminals that may in turn pose a risk to you.

The thing about most lifeboat situations is that they can be prevented. That makes it our individual duty as humans to learn how to do so.

Great answer.

Are you saying that we should work harder on finding a cure for TB? Most likely, that cure won't be delivered to us within the mainstream medical system.

If this guy was so dangerous that the police were sent to track him down, they should not have sent him to a motel. A MOTEL!?!? Is that the same room I'm going to sleep in the next day?

Just another piece of the scare propaganda.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed

Quarantine does not mean tax to pay cops to put a person in prison. Quarantine can simply mean that person must stay in their home; basically segregate that person from society. A decent, true liberty loving person would stay in their home so they didn't tread on the rights of others by infecting them with a deadly disease.

Your second paragraph has nothing to do with the question at hand as it is not specific only to the question but to the broader sense of property ownership.

Same for the third paragraph.

Fourth paragraph: When a person contracts a lethal disease there is never a good resolution. That person is most likely going to die and die horribly. His or her presense in any location would automatically violate our rights to life in the same way a person randomly swinging a sword would with the exception we'd never know that the infected person was a lethal threat to our lives and those of our family. The infected person would still trample on our rights to liberty if we were required to wear some form of mask or other anti viral device, or get vaccinated, to avoid death at his/her hands. NOTE : Your final sentence in this paragraph is off topic and used to trigger an emotional response.

Fifth paragraph : Nobody has mentioned that we should kill this person before the virus runs its course. This is a strawman argument at the very best. A point you fail to address is that pretending a person trying to kill you through no fault of their own is not a threat to your life. If a person infected with a lethal, aerial disease were to come at me or my family I would shoot to kill without hesitation. It may not be his/her fault but I will defend my family.

Sixth paragraph : This paragraph makes no sense and contradicts itself several times. The simple fact is that I have every right to defend my life and that of my family and friends. If you know you are contagious and you come at me then you have nobody to blame but yourself. On the other hand whose life is more valuable? The infected person or the uninfected person? Does the uninfected person deserve to be infected?

Seventh paragraph : the most sense you've made so far.

Eighth paragraph : I don't buy your definition of morality. What is moral differs between people as snowflakes in a storm. The simple solution you mention is most likely impossible in this situation. If the infected person is unaware they could be a lethal threat to you then the force you intend against him/her is not going to be near the same as the infected person's intent against you though it will be equal in consequence. And if the person is unaware that they are a lethal threat to you and walk around a corner face to face with you then how do you avoid that situation? The answer is you don't. Crap happens just like it did for the infected person.

That certainly is what quarantine means

And if my logic is fundamentally flawed, you certainly haven't shown it, or even referenced it.

The simple reality is not every conflict involves one person who isn't violating rights and one person who is.

Pretending it does will automatically force you to make bad decisions. If you understand the reality that some situations can't be resolved without violating someone's rights and accepting this then you will know the truth, that it is your responsibility to prevent them happening in the first place when possible. This doesn't mean it's always possible.

If you violate the rights of a sick person you are still violating their rights. Their sickness doesn't poof their rights. Or did the word unalienable not get defined for you?

And in case it wasn't clear that doesn't mean your rights are not violated if they infect you. That's the point.

But if you pretend that your actions against them, which you may feel you have no other choice but to employ, are not violating the sick persons rights then you have in fact become part of the problem, because you will think it's just peachy to cage or shoot sick people because you perceive a risk.

It's not. You can pretend to yourself it's ok, but that doesn't make it so. And yes the sick person has the same responsibility. One may hope that between any two people that may get into a situation where the only resolution is someone getting screwed at least one has sense to prevent it. But even if they do it won't always work.

You're a physician in the jungle
You're armed
Someone approaches you speaking a language you don't know
You recognize early symptoms of a lethal contagious disease
You know it's impossible an untrained person would know the signs
He can't understand you saying stay away

If you shoot him it doesn't make you right for doing it, though I'd not likely be willing to sanction you for it. You killed an innocent man, in self defense, but you still killed an innocent man.

If he's armed and sees you going for your sidearm and shoots first, I'd similarly not be willing to sanction him for it. He killed a guilty man (you had intent to kill), who was trying to act in self defense against his innocent (had no intent to kill) killer.

So, what you are saying

is that the sick person has the right to violate my rights to life? Please. Even our founders knew better. Your rights to do anything end exactly where they tread on the rights of others. If this happens to preclude you from being a part of society then I'm sorry for your condition but you do not have the right to endanger people's lives; period. Or do you not agree with that?

Secondly, quarantine only means to isolate. The method to which one is quarantined is a different subject all together. And that is the fundamental flaw in your original argument followed closely by implying a person has the right to risk the lives of others in direct violation of their rights to life.

Buyer Beware!

Have you heard the term before? Meaning it's your fault if you bought the product that didn't work. You should have done your research. In this case the buyer being the victim of the disease.

What about safety conscious? Be aware of your surroundings. You go anywhere without proper PPE and get hurt then whose fault is it?

If I had a cold and I was standing beside you outside would you lock me up?

lol obviously you'd move away.

If I was intentionally stalking you and harassing you then you have a case but if I'm just going about my day like usual leave me alone!!!

That's liberty.

You have reading comprehension issues

I explicitly said exactly the opposite of what you said I said.

Several times.

No one has the right to violate anyone's rights. That's an absurd and self contradictory concept.

It is not always the case that only one person rights are being violated. Because two people are in a situation that one must violate the other's rights doesn't create the right to do so.

Once you understand that you understand that it is incumbent on us to avoid those situations, and for the most part they can be.

Failing to understand that will inevitably lead you to making evil and immoral decisions that you could have avoided having to make.

But how would you know this person was lethal?

Because you trust a doctor's diagnosis enough to kill? This isn't zombie apocalypse. This young man obviously felt well enough to leave his hotel and drive around. And the article said the disease could be fatal if untreated. He might be a threat to health, but not necessarily to life.

Let me put it this way

A guy running around waving a lit stick of TNT approaches you and your family. He might be a threat. You willing to put the lives of those you love in that kind of danger?

Second, the question implies we know this guy is infected with a disease that is known to kill most of the people that are infected with it. Given this information; you approach my family and I'll cure what ails you.

Third, doctors are not this evil subset of people everybody here wants to make them out to be. Sure, their training in treatment isn't what it used to be and their over reliance on tests and drugs rather than on common sense is staggering, but even the most incompetent doctor is quite capable of checking the blood for a well known virus. I trust a carpenter to build my house, I trust an engineer to build a bridge, I trust my doctor to figure out why blood is pouring out of my eyes; simple. And yes, like anything, there is a statistical percentage of doctors who are arrogant assholes who will over react when you dare question their judgement; you can't prevent that in any field of study.

Not quite.

The guy is running around with a burning stick. Someone tells you it is TNT. Do you trust them enough to shoot the guy with the stick?

Second, this case is regular TB which is serious and if left untreated can kill 50% of those actively infected. Nine out of ten people with the disease do not have an active infection and will show no symptoms. So basically if you contract the disease you have a one in twenty chance of dying if you don't get treatment.

I do not want to place doctors in the position of deciding mandatory treatments and enforced quarantines. The protocols must be very well thought out and determined by legitimate law. Executive orders are not legit in my opinion.

So if a person knowingly

So if a person knowingly walks into your house with a deadly virus....

Is that the same as walking in with a loaded gun and pointing it at you?


Is a slippery slope argument for libertarians. I hope the people who feel that this is OK, is also cool with Gov. mandatory vaccinations against said diseases.

My best question? Was he a citizen? Was he just allowed to roam California without being a citizen?

If California let someone run around unchecked with TB because of their "sanctuary city" type laws, then I would lean Yes. And hold the state liable for damages if he crossed into another state?

But if he was a citizen and one of these hospitals had incentive in diagnosing more with TB to control..... Keep watch on you, hold you hostage in their facilities. Ouch.

I would then lean "NO" for citizens. Anything else would not be very "free" if you ask me......

It Could Be OK

The only way that I would agree to allow mandatory quarantines is if I am the one who determines who becomes quarantined.

If I received that power, I would start by diagnosing the following people as subject to quarantine:

Those who have been destroying America's wealth in the name of government.

They all have contagious illnesses that are a danger to society.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

Yes because its a known

Yes because its a known garunteed danger to other people.
It would be exactly like someone walking around and randomly injecting vials of fluid into people that may or may not contain a deadly disease.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

When you say

like someone walking around and randomly injecting vials of fluid into people

Are you referring to the people that call themselves the "medical community" and inject millions of people with diseases (that is what is in those immunizaions), heavy metals, and random chemical additives like formaldehyde?

This happens every day... and people line up for it! And Pay for it! I am not thinking this would even raise an eyebrow.

Heck yes

Come on my land with a deadly contagious illness .Lead poisoning might hit you first. Africa the test site for biological weapon's testing. It part of extinction protocol.

Money talks and dogs bark

You know I don't believe that's ok

Here's my reasoning. Ron Paul seems to have some more naturopathiic health ideas going on in his head then most people out there. Even on the DP there's not enough people doing research on the medical aspect of things. Here's my appeal to you if you think force is necessary. If you were given the disease by a government bioweapon would you want to be quarantined yourself? I'm sure you wouldn't. Neither would I.

So what do you do if you do have a contagious disease? Well the number one thing you can do is to change your habits. Remember this:
NEWSTAR: Nutrition, Excercise, Water, Sunshine, Temperance, Air(fresh), Rest.

Eat Vegan and wide variety of food to boost your immune system, Excercise if you are not, drink enough water(Half your weight in ounces), Get Vitamin D Sun exposure(Great for fighting disease and cancer), Avoid all bad things for health: Eg. Drugs, Alcohol, etc. and take the good things in moderation. Get enough sleep and go to bed before 10pm at latest.

Now that's for those who don't believe in cures for every kind of disease out there. I believe you can kill any viral disease with electricity using a magnetic pulser and zapper. So if you do some research look up Bob Beck on youtube.

Just for some extra info: The AIDs virus has been suppressed with a vegan diet and following the NewStart principles.

And just about every form of disease and cancer has been reversed with a vegan diet Eg. Diabetes Type 2 and 1, Breast Cancer, Prostate, Heart disease(Check Caldwell Esselstyn)(Modified Vegan Diet),

Look up: Vegsource videos on youtube there's tons of info on how to beat almost every kind of disease out there.

Also check: Walter Veith's Health Seminars he's got 5 or so. Professor who specialized in Nutrition.

So basically what I'm saying is that if you have some type of disease if you are serious enough to do the research and then implement it you will beat it.

So no, I don't believe in quarantine cause these doctors really don't really don't know all there is to know about health.

Plus they are allopathic doctors which is not as good as naturopathic doctors.