Calling Dr. Paul: What About Vectorism?

Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 20:26.

One of the flaws of Federalism, aka “States rights”, as it is normally conceived is the presumption of unlimited interstate migration. This flaw in Federalism arose because during the founding of the US, land was cheap, labor was scarce and what labor there was tended to be from the same general human ecology: northwestern Europe. All of these assumptions are now false.

As a consequence, Federalism, so conceived, is now Vectorism: The promotion of virulence via horizontal transmission of diseases via highly migratory vectors. In this case the diseases are mobile human ecologies infecting stationary human ecologies represented by States within the Federation.

To illustrate the problem is relatively straight forward:

Let’s say that some but not all States provide generous welfare benefits to their citizens because those citizens are, for whatever reason, not prone to cheat the welfare system, while other States are not so generous because their citizens are, again for whatever reason, prone to cheat the welfare system. This is analogous to the current situation in which some countries, such as the US, have had generous welfare systems which subsidize the immigrant laborers coming to the US thereby subsidizing employers and displacing native citizens.

Such unlimited migration is admitted by most relatively rational libertarians (such as Ron Paul and Milton Friedman) to result in an even more rapid collapse of human social capital of the welfare state than would occur within an isolated welfare state. As with any “borderless” society, the main problem with free movement within a Federation of States is the evolution of virulence via horizontal transmission—and the more “diversity” of migrants the greater the likelihood that virulent human ecologies will discover ways to exploit this vulnerability.

Dr. Paul may believe that this is all well and good because it simply means that no State will experiment with State-supported welfare—such State-supported welfare being essentially an “evil” within his model of libertarianism. However, vectorism is not limited to such constructs as welfare systems in its destructive potential. It includes, also, more traditional infections such as we are now seeing with the emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)—a killer bacteria which prevalence is continually being underestimated and that is now thought to kill more people than HIV. Normally, a libertarian politician like might treat MRSA as just another case of environmental degradation—and dismiss it with some claim that all you need to do is resort to tort law or some other measure to internalize the cost of the damage from the pathogen to the vectors, such as hospitals where most such infections are acquired. But Ron Paul is a doctor. He is cursed with a depth of understanding of diseases that doesn’t let him simply ignore certain public health consequences of his ideology. Let’s look at this public health problem from the standpoint of the member States of a Federation:

A Federalist government that prohibits States from controlling their borders is, in essence, forcing those States to admit the entry of disease vectors. The entry of one MRSA vector to a State can result in enormous cost increases to the hospitals of that State by virtue of the fact that those hospitals become liable, under tort law, for the deaths caused by MRSA acquired in their hospitals. They have to make extra investments, not only in infrastructure, but in on-going operations, to contain the threat of MRSA to their patients.

Where do they turn for recovery of these expenses?

The vector who entered the State with MRSA? He may be broke and the costs to the hospitals may be astronomical.

The Federalist government itself due to its enforcement of “freedom” of interstate movement? Where is the Federalist government going to come up with the revenue to pay for this “freedom”?

While I appreciate many of the positions of Dr. Paul, I do appreciate even more that if such questions are put to him, the fact that he is a doctor may force him to pause for just a moment and think it possible he may be wrong about Federalism as conceived by Founders who had the luxury of much land and low diversity of good people within their Federation.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Maz2331 on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:17 | #

Wow… what an article! I now feel as if my IQ has dropped ten points after just reading it.

This author seriously needs to understand a few things. First, the USA is not a monolithic nation, and it does have quite pronounced regional differences. Apparently, focusing on “disease control” is the latest and greatest way to promote nothing other than turning the states into mere “administrative regions” for the US Federal Government.

He seems to be making the assumption that State governments are absolutely incapable of running a health department, or of implementing quarantine procedures. That is far from true. In many places, even county-level health departments are unbelievably harsh and efficient, and are much more likely to know what’s going on in their area of responsibility than any buracracy in DC is likely to.

It’s a common mistake to make, but really the States are still the primary unit of government in the USA. The Federal government may appear to be #1, but it really is the local and state governments that have the most impact upon citizens’ lives, and states have taxing and spending powers equivilent and in some cases greater than the Federal governments.

So… in summary: this article is nothing but a big, hot, steaming pile of bull.

Posted by ctjohnson on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:22 | #

Wouldn’t the states that support a more socialized healthcare system get hit harder? I think that is what you are trying to say. States with populations who don’t like higher taxes and social programs would not have these social systems. The states that do have them would because their electorate believe in these social systems. The way I see it…if they believe in them…then they will pay the price.

Effectively in the scenario you describe…socialized systems would show their weakness and problems. Eventually, those states would have to reassess their faulty systems and adjust to a system where people had to take individual responsibility more.

So the problem is what? It sounds like you support social programs like socialized medicine and are worrying about ‘freeloaders’. HELLO! Social programs are always plagued by the freeloader problem…it is their major weakness. Taxing everyone who can be taxed to support ALL…even those who don’t pay tax.

So yes…states who take up a socialistic approach will get people moving there who want to freeload. However, many who work hard and don’t want to support freeloaders will move to states that don’t steal/tax them to death. You will have people moving both ways…the more socialistic states will falter…flounder…fail…and come crashing down. The more free states will prosper and flourish with an influx of hard working, entrepreneurial, individually responsible citizens.

Sounds good to me

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:29 | #

Yes I addressed the guaranteed failure of socialized State systems under vectorism with:

Dr. Paul may believe that this is all well and good because it simply means that no State will experiment with State-supported welfare—such State-supported welfare being essentially an “evil” within his model of libertarianism.

However, your statement that ALL socialized systems fail isn’t really a rational statement. There are extended family systems that work with a lot more social capital at their command than highly “diverse” human ecosystems due, precisely, to the greater degree of kinship within the system than between systems. There are intermediates too, such as the socialized systems of some Nordic countries prior to being invaded by immigration. Yes, I know these examples run counter to your dogma but you see, this is precisely why I call you irrational. Facts are stubborn things.

Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:49 | #

I believe what the author was pointing toward is this:

In a homogenous society (all white, no jews, no blacks, only Christians) the social and moral fabric of each state would equalize normally, and all would live in relative harmony, social services included.

IN a heterogenous society (today’s AmeriKa) the blacks, the Jews, and the other users (gays, etc.) will flock to a state that is more ‘socially conscious’ about health benefits, unwed mother benefits,‘domestic partner’ benefits, etc.

For all these groups fall under St. Paul’s dictum, “He who will not work (for the social good) will not eat.” IN short, they are all parasites. Some active, some passive, but none of them contributing to the True “Good” of a White American Society. They never did, they never will.

Thus, if we reverted to a ‘states rights’ model, WITHOUT at the same time, shipping back the ‘unwashed, talmuddied,sexually perverse, or simply stupid’ to their country of origin, (or kill them outright, as they advocate for us, as THEIR “final solution”- Let’s be honest, shall we?) we would be in a big mess, as each of the ‘special interest groups’ would flock to ‘Californication’ or the Socialist State of New Jersey,’ etc. And would seek to restore the socialist states of multiculturalistan at their earliest opportunity.

The answer is clear.

Restore the USA to a land for White Christian Europeans.
Deport or destroy those who do not fit that paradigm.
No leniency,
no amnesty
No compromise.

The paradigms of the Founding Fathers would once more operate according to Hoyle.

I see no problem with this.
Nor should any other REAL American.

“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

“Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny”, Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon

“It is crucial to acknowledge sentiment and facts which are opposed to the propagandist’s goals.” (Jacque Ellul, Propaganda)

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:43 | #

Fr. John, I’m not sure if you were responding to Maz2331 but he is obviously so far gone that he’d consider your explanation to be even more of a “steaming pile”. Statements like:

county-level health departments are unbelievably harsh and efficient

demonstrate he doesn’t have the first clue about the threat posed. There’s little that health departments can do in the face of a Federal Government enforced vectorism. Sure, they can be “unbelievably harsh” and delay the inevitable, but the real problem is that if the Federal Government enforces the acceptance of vectors, there really is no option other than being “unbelievably harsh”. This guy’s logic is identical to the neocon logic that says we must have an “unbelievably harsh” Department of Homeland Security because to control the borders is unacceptable.