How would policy toward Covid have differed in Libertarian Land?
No president or governor would have forced the closure of “non-essential” businesses, banned large gatherings, imposed shelter-in-place rules, restricted travel across state or international borders, mandated mask-wearing in public spaces, or closed K-12 schools.1
Covid vaccines would have been available faster because Libertarian Land has no FDA. This speedier approval, moreover, would not have seemed “too fast,” since absent an FDA, many drugs enter the market quickly. Thus vaccine hesitancy would have been lower.
Private responses to Covid would have been stronger, both because the residents of Libertarian Land are not polarized and because government efforts would not have crowded out private responses. Even amidst all the government intervention, private measures to mitigate the pandemic were robust in most places (vaccine development, voluntary closure by colleges and universities, cancellation of sports events, voluntary mask wearing, work from home, and more).
Government in Libertarian Land would have been humble and cautious in considering policy responses to the pandemic. Scientific advisors and government officials have every right to change their minds (about masks or vaccines, for example) in the light of new evidence. In Libertarian Land, however, these people are forthcoming about their reasons and explicit about the uncertainty surrounding their scientific views and policy recommendations. This would have meant less polarization and backlash than occurred in many countries.
The Libertarian Land response to Covid would have focused on the full range of consequences from intervention, rather than just targeting the absence of disease. Even if policies like lockdowns or school closures reduce disease transmission (the evidence is mixed), they also lower GDP, reduce learning, and increase isolation. Thoughtful policy evaluation should balance all these effects and consider intangible negatives such as increased polarization.
None of this means that government in Libertarian Land have done nothing in response to Covid; subsidies for vaccine research or production might have made sense (although even those interventions can generate serious negatives).
But such interventions are not coercive, they target key problems directly, and they respect appropriate limits on government power. Perhaps the biggest negative of the interventions pursued by most governments is that, going forward, these precedents will seem to legitimize even more aggressive policies in response to the next “emergency.”
All schools in Libertarian Land are privately owned and operated, although some receive government support via vouchers. I address this in future posts.