Over 100,000 Fentanyl Deaths Spark Debate on Libertarianism's Stance on Collective Action

Author Devon Eriksen has initiated a significant discussion within libertarian circles, challenging the philosophy's capacity to address pressing societal threats, particularly the ongoing fentanyl crisis. Eriksen's recent social media commentary questions whether an extreme anti-state position could ultimately compromise the very liberty it seeks to protect by hindering collective self-preservation.

In a direct critique, Eriksen stated, > "Sometimes I think that the functional goal of modern libertarianism is to prevent America from engaging in ANY act of self-preservation whatsoever." He further pressed, "Is there any hypothetical substance which you would regard as toxic and addictive enough to constitute a threat? Is there any level of deliberate introduction of such a substance that you would regard as justification for policy?"

The debate comes as the United States grapples with a severe fentanyl crisis, which saw over 100,000 overdose deaths in 2021, largely attributed to synthetic opioids. While many libertarian thinkers, including those at the Cato Institute, advocate for harm reduction strategies and drug legalization to dismantle black markets and enhance safety, they generally oppose coercive state interventions, viewing the "War on Drugs" as an infringement on civil liberties.

Eriksen's argument suggests a potential blind spot in some libertarian interpretations, where collective dangers like "Fentanyl? Not a threat. Unlimited 3rd world invasion? Not a threat. Ideological subversion? Not a threat" are dismissed due to ideological opposition to state action. This perspective implies that an inability to countenance any form of collective response leaves society vulnerable to threats that undermine individual control over destiny.

Broader discussions within libertarianism acknowledge a spectrum of views on state intervention. While core tenets emphasize minimal government to protect negative rights, some scholars debate whether limited state involvement might be necessary for public goods or to safeguard fundamental liberties against collective action problems or private power abuses. This internal dialogue reflects a search for balance between individual autonomy and societal well-being.

Eriksen's tweet also referenced Bryan Johnson and GLP-1 receptor triggers, implicitly contrasting individual, high-cost health solutions with the need for collective policy. Johnson is known for his extensive and expensive "Project Blueprint" aimed at longevity, an example of an atomized approach to health that stands apart from systemic, policy-driven responses to widespread public health challenges.

Ultimately, Eriksen's inquiry posits that true liberty involves maximizing control over one's own destiny, and when the absence or failure of state action removes that control, it ceases to be liberty. His challenge prompts a re-evaluation of how libertarian principles can adapt to real-world threats requiring collective responses without sacrificing core values.