I wonder what the Libertarian thought it is on travel bans?
The purpose of "government" in Libertarian ideology is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people in any ways the people can't for themselves, or the private sector can not.
Knowingly or unknowingly passing on a lethal contagion is an act of aggression against the life and liberty of others. So roaming around free with a deadly communicable disease automatically violates the Libertarian NAP.
To paraphrase Tom Clancy, (ironic, since he's got a strong authoritarian streak...)
Libertarianism is not a suicide pact. If anything, under a Libertarian system, "travel bans" and quarantine might actually have some
teeth. A private transportation concern, be it a plane, a ship, a train, or maybe even a private road may actually ban travel for the infected more effectively than the .gov ever would. It would be in the financial interests of these companies to not carry infected people, either because of direct threat to their profits, the well being of it's employees, or simply because of the loss of good will with the public/customer base if it was found out they facilitated the transportation of a person with a deadly disease.
I'd argue that the .gov makes it
worse, because of it's tendency to engage in negative-profiling, and misplaced egalitarian desires to engage in Political Correctness. Kind of like how the TSA gives the 90 year old American woman in a wheelchair a strip-search, and waves through a bunch of Middle Eastern women in burqas.
i.e. "
Travel ban from Africa is racist, you can't do that! Keep flying!" meanwhile, an airline under a Libertarian system would be allowed to discriminate if it so wished if it thought that was in it's best interests as a business.