What is the Government’s Proper Role in Fighting Ebloa in a Libertarian World?

Newsweek interviewed a bunch of libertarians, including moi,
about what role the government could legitimately play in
addressing the Ebola “crisis” and was surprised by the responses.
Why? Because, contra popular myths, not one said that it should just stand back and let
the disease run amuck. Notes the story:

The[ir] answer is more nuanced than one might expect: Most
Libertarians interviewed by Newsweek agreed government
should intervene to protect public health in exceptional
circumstances, but said intervention would have to be very careful
and limited—and, perhaps, that it is better executed by the private
sector.

Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at Reason Foundation, the Libertarian
think tank that publishes Reason magazine, explains to
Newsweek the starting point of most Libertarian belief is
a limited government that provides “essential” functions, such as
national defense. But in certain circumstances—if a person had a
deadly communicable disease and refused to isolate himself, for
example—governmental intervention could be considered
essential…

Read the whole thing here.