The Libertarianism section of Michael S. Merry's "Libertarian Bioethics and Religion: The Case of H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr." paper is the subject of tonight's LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG.  I originally commented on this article on 07/12/11.  I hope my short review of this essay is illuminating.  

In the first paragraph of the Libertarianism section Merry questions the possibility of Christian libertarianism.  Hmmm.  Merry is apparently unfamiliar with Lew Rockwell and Gary North and Thomas Woods.

In the second paragraph Merry argues that Engelhardt's use of biblical references to defend some of his libertarian views is inappropriate.  As an atheist, I frankly do not think anyone should cite the Bible as evidence for anything.  Because I am not a biblical scholar, however, I have no comment on the merits of Merry's discussion.

In the third paragraph Merry criticizes some of Engelhardt's libertarian views from a utilitarian standpoint.  Merry's views are the opposite of reality (e.g., libertarianism is the best economic policy for the poor).  In addition, the proper basis for libertarianism is the rational natural-rights ethic (self-ownership and original appropriation and non-aggression) promulgated by the LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG, not utilitarianism. 

In the fourth paragraph Merry attacks Engelhardt's libertarianism via a positive rights approach (freedom from want).  Merry is apparently unaware that positive rights are illegitimate and, sadly, he is specifically horrified that libertarianism demands that "all social programs have to be premised on the consent of each and every individual person."  Once again I am fascinated by the fact that non-libertarian bioethicists commonly support "patient" autonomy but not "citizen" autonomy.

In the final paragraph Merry finally lands a blow when he queries why "Engelhardt does not believe that transactions - in the form of gifts or bequests - can be compelled by the state" but simultaneously seems "unperturbed about other paternalistic, 'coercive' actions of the State that interfere with individual liberties (e.g., compulsory schooling, scientific research, the building of libraries, roads, parks, defense, emergency relief aid)?"  This the classic libertarian anarchist argument detailing the philosophical incoherence of minarchism.  Bravo, Mr. Merry!  However, Mr. Merry, the appropriate solution to Engelhardt's problem is not to adopt democratic socialism, as you suggest; rather, Engelhardt should abandon minarchism and immediately adopt libertarian anarchism, the philosophy promulgated by the LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG. 

"Horrific US Medical Experiments Come to Light" is the title of a February 27, 2011 aolnews.com article by Mike Stobbe of AP.  This health story details the results of an "exhaustive review by The Associated Press of medical journal reports and decades-old press clippings."  The purpose of the AP study was to unearth unethical U.S. government research.

Regardless of the merits of this excellent article, the first sentence is a howler:  "Shocking as it may seem, U.S. government doctors once thought it was fine to experiment on disabled people and prison inmates."  SHOCKING?  Mr. Stobbe, I guarantee you that readers of the LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG are not shocked to discover that employees of the premier criminal organization in the world (the U.S. government) violated the non-aggression principle while conducting medical research against vulnerable populations.

Similar to the Wikipedia article concerning U.S. government human experimentation detailed in the 05/03/11 LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG post, Stobbe's story provides multiple examples of the approximately 40 unethical studies found by the AP.  Below are lowlights of five of the medical experiments:

     1) "A federally funded study in 1942 injected experimental flu vaccine in male patients at a state insane asylum in Ypsilanti, Mich., then exposed them to flu several months later."
     2) "In federally funded studies in the 1940s, noted researcher Dr. W. Paul Havens Jr. exposed men to hepatitis in a series of experiments, including one using patients from mental institutions in Middletown and Norwich, Conn."
     3) "Researchers in the mid-1940s studied the transmission of a deadly stomach bug by having young men swallow unfiltered stood suspension.  The study was conducted at the New York State Vocational Institution, a reformatory prison in West Coxsackie."
     4) "A University of Minnesota study in the late 1940s injected 11 public service employee volunteers with malaria, then starved them for five days."
     5) "For a study in 1957, when the Asian flu pandemic was spreading, federal researchers sprayed the virus in the noses of 23 inmates at Patuxent prison in Jessup, Md., to compare their reactions to those of 32 virus-exposed inmates who had been given a new vaccine."

A commonality in articles detailing U.S. government crimes is a paragraph quoting an "expert" who provides an excuse (or excuses) for the U.S. government aggression.  This news story is not an exception, for Laura Stark, an assistant professor of science in society at Wesleyan University, states the following: "There was definitely a sense - that we don't have today - that sacrifice for the nation was important."  SACRIFICE FOR THE NATION?  Allowing aggression against a vulnerable member of society is not a sacrifice, Assistant Professor Stark; rather, allowing aggression against a vulnerable member of society (or for that matter any member of society) is aiding and abetting a crime.    

I first learned about the U.S. government STD inoculation study in Guatemala  from an October 2010 msnbc.com article by Robert Bazell titled "U.S. apologizes for Guatemala STD experiments."  The LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG obviously opposes criminal government medical research.  Below I tantalize readers with a sample of morsels from this shameful news item:

     U.S. government crime: "U.S. government medical researchers intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala, including institutionalized mental patients, with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission more than 60 years ago." 

     U.S. government excuses: "Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health." Also, "officials noted that there were no formalized regulations regarding protection of human studies during the 1940s."

     U.S. government criminal accomplice: "The STD experiments were conducted with the cooperation of the Guatemalan government."

     U.S. government untruths: "As we move forward to better understand this appalling event, we reaffirm the importance of our relationship with Guatemala, and our respect for the Guatemalan people, as well as our commitment to the highest standards of ethics in medical research."

     U.S. government plan to expand imperialism into the realm of medical research: "In addition to the apology, the U.S. is setting up commissions to ensure that human medical research conducted around the globe meets "rigorous ethical standards.""