Here’s my problem with what Ron Paul just said, this Ebola epidemic is a good reason to temporarily suspend freedom of international travel to save freedom in the long run. The fact that the CDC are allowing so little restrictions and petty lawlessness are exactly what will destroy freedom with anarchy, which is the worst form of tyranny.
If you read it carefully, he doesn't even say there should not be a common-sense travel ban. His son Rand has called for one.
But instead of saying that, Ron says this:
Legitimate concerns about protecting airline passengers from those with Ebola or other infectious diseases can best be addressed by returning responsibility for passenger safety to the airlines. After all, private airlines have a greater incentive than does government to protect their passengers from contagious diseases. They can do so while providing a safe means of travel for those seeking medical treatment in the United States. This would remove the incentive to lie about exposure to the virus among those seeking to come here for treatment.
What Ron is doing here is dodging the issue and playing to his ancap-philosopher $ubscriber ba$e. Rand is being more of a statesman serious about governing by stating the obvious -- of course there sould be a travel ban.