Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness. But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that.
You could take it to arbitration, and with the inevitable delays there will be a strong chance that she will have her $10,000 and get treatment before the arbitration begins.
On what grounds would one take her to arbitration?
I suppose in the most legalistic sense you could contact some of her customers and wait until one of them tests positive and develops symptoms.
Is this one of those things where common sense is involved?
You could insist, and with force partly moral and partly physical get her treated. This is aggression on your part, but you could justify it on the grounds that she is committing physical force on each of her clients.
How is she committing non-consensual physical force? This would assume that (a) Ginger in fact does have a dangerous and communicable STD (which hasn't been established),
For the sake of discussion, let's say that you do know the truth about this. In reality there might be some room for doubt, leaving you with a moral concern. If you are only 90% sure, then you must balance the damage she may do to lots of people versus the damage you do her which she could sue you over, if you are wrong. At some particular level of doubt you will be completely undecided. With considerably more doubt you will comfortably do nothing, and with considerably less doubt you will confidently act.
Of course, if she's a reasonable person she might agree to get tested and settle the issue to the degree that the testing works. Each test will have some fraction of false positives and some fraction of false negatives, but if it's a false positive then no real harm done unless the treatment is expensive or dangerous. A false negative is worse, but we can only do the best we can.
But in this story she has chosen not to voluntarily cooperate to the extent that a reasonable person would.
(b) Ginger engages in activities which may communicate said STD (which a third party would not generally have knowledge of),
For the sake of discussion, let's say that you do know about this. And after all, she told you why she didn't want to get treated yet. You are making yes-buts.
(c) Ginger is withholding or giving false information about whether or not she has said STD.
She wants to make $10,000 quick. She refuses testing. Is she going to make a quick $10,000 telling people "I think I have a serious STD" or "Somebody thinks I have a serious STD but I refuse to find out"?
But say you merely announce to everybody who might be interested in her, by linking to her Facebook page and everything else you can think of, that Ginger is a prostitute who has a dangerous untreated STD. Then you are not committing any physical force at all against her and there is no question whether you might be wronging her, you definitely are not.
What if it is not true? There is nothing to indicate that Ginger is a prostitute in the information given,
?? There isn't?
nor is there any evidence that she has an STD beyond one person's "strong reason" to believe so. There is also no evidence that if the first two items are true that prophylactic practices to minimize infection are not in place.
These are yes-buts. You don't like the dilemma so you assume it away.
For most things we can depend on voluntary cooperation. if it's only 95% effective, so what? Government coercion is seldom more than 90% effective, and we get by adequately, so if people only cooperated a little bit better we'd get by just fine. I doubt that approach will work for epidemic disease. 95% cooperation can give you an epidemic.
With the current system, the public health people provide free testing. Or you can get private testing. In either case, if you test positive for a known epidemic STD, your MD is legally obligated to report it. You will be asked to list all your recent sexual partners, and you are legally required to answer. (Though I've never heard of somebody getting prosecuted for leaving some out.) They will contact your partners and test them. If you pay for your own testing, your MD may break the law for you. He can give you treatment and not report it and not ask about your sexual partners, and who will know?
The uS system is not generally thought to be corrupt, though there have been cases in latin american countries where the wives of opposition leaders were arrested and forced to take STD tests and then were publicly announced to test positive, when testing by supporters of the opposition showed they tested negative.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5754a1.htmAs a result of our system, reported cases of gonorrhea in the USA in 2008 were only 0.11% of the US population. (About 1% in US blacks for a variety of reasons.) Syphilis rates were very low but rising -- particularly rising among gay men.
It is not ideal but we can get by this way. I'm reasonably sure an AnCap society can find methods that will work well enough to get by.
Taking the stand that people have the right to spread epidemic disease and other people do not even have the right to call for arbitration about it, is probably not workable.