Forced Quarantine For Covid-19 Coronavirus

“If the economy is opened transmission will mean an overwhelmed healthcare system. By keeping the economy closed or cautiously opening only essential businesses we avoid having to ration ventilators.”

“The economic costs to limiting business activity outweigh the probability of an overwhelmed healthcare system because the risks can be managed.”

“We can’t properly manage the risks because we don’t know what they are. Without a vaccination or proper testing, the risks are too high.”

“These elitist bureaucrats are telling me what I can and can’t do! It’s an unconstitutional breach of freedom.”

“The average knowledge of infectious disease is not sufficient to determine the most efficient course of action.”

“I have to feed my family and work to avoid depression and anxiety. I have a duty to take care of myself, not collect a check from the government.”

“Until we have sufficient testing and technical capacity for data on the spreading of the disease the cost to society is much higher if nonessential workers are made vulnerable than if they receive stimulus in the form of unemployment insurance.”

“It’s my choice! I’ve been stripped of my freedom!”

“This anger is a viral force that can be used to gain subscribers, a sick self-reinforcing incentive scheme that makes everyone worse off.”

“First forced closures, but where’s the line? Forced contact tracing?”

“That’s a slippery slope.”


The Federal Reserve

Giving too much power to a central authority is exactly what we were trying to avoid when we instituted democracy!

Our government is in such significant gridlock that they can’t get anything done.

Incrementalism is a part of what makes our government work so well! Moreover, sweeping legislation as been proven to be possible such as the Affordable Care Act.

The government should not head a bank that purchases and owns assets in the free market! It encroaches on communism, when the government owns the means for production.

The Federal Reserve should be able to make asset purchases because it makes liquidity available for firms when there is none available. The end is not for the government to own assets or means of production, but instead to reduce suffering from problems of liquidity in recession, and animal spirits in times of expansion.

The Federal Reserve is printing money! It makes money useless! There will be inflation, rendering my saving worthless! Moreover, my savings are worth less because the savings rate is so low, making me have to put money into the market to get a desirable rate of return, resulting in losses! This is fraud!

We started using fiat currency because it allows us to adjust the money supply with trust in our government being the asset that the fiat currency represents. It allows us more control over savings rates and, obviously, the supply of money. There is too much at stake, and much perverse incentive, in the market for money.

That’s exactly that! How can we possibly leave regulating money to a small group of bankers? One world order!

Standards of living have, on the whole, increased, and although there is no way to know what would have happened if we adhered to the gold standard, evidence suggests that recessions would be much deeper, longer, and more painful. The Federal Reserve is a necessary evil.

The Federal Reserve should helicopter drop money to REAL PEOPLE instead of banks! Giving money to people that spend it will increase economic growth. If it is a one-time drop, inflation expectations will not offset the growth.

That is the job of fiscal policy.


Free Healthcare for Everyone

“If people don’t have to pay, they will overuse”

“If everyone has to pay, not everyone can get care.”

“We have to pay in the form of higher premiums or taxes, and if the cost is not salient enough there is the free rider problem.”

“There is net benefit: chronically unemployed will get jobs after getting healthy. Disabled people are entering the workforce because of increased access to care.”

“No. Spending more money on disabled people just means they go to the doctor more. They won’t get jobs because they are disabled.”

“There is low-hanging fruit, such as treating addiction and PTSD.”

“It is immoral for homeless drug addicts to free ride off my taxes and get better healthcare. It is dangerous to treat PTSD with dangerous drugs like MDMA and LSD. Homelessness has a purpose in our society: if social safety nets provide too high a quality of life there is less reason to go to work.”

“But if we treat the mental illness, then those suffering people will get off the street and become tax-paying citizens. There is economic and moral ground for ending homelessness and treating mental illness.

Homeless people are homeless for a reason. They want to be homeless and it is their fault.

No, they are mentally ill and we have medicine and techniques to solve this problem in a way that provides net benefit to society and the suffering mentally ill.”

“Well healthcare costs are already out of control. Reducing the out of pocket costs will only reduce price-sensitivity because the costs are too far removed. Especially when government deficits seem to be increasing indefinitely.”

“Our economy is creating enough value for this benefit (healthcare), but that value is being captured as profit to large corporations.”


“There are ways to incentivize innovation in a more directed fashion than simply cutting taxes. Corporations shouldn’t be able to free ride on innovation. Tax payers should get a return on their investment. Invest in people to make them healthy, then invest in corporations.”

“What matters is the headlines, not the details. Animal spirits drive the economy. More regulation and government involvement in the economy will ultimately shake investor confidence. Offering these benefits at the expense of corporate profits is bad for GDP.”

At the very least, access to healthcare for people that will use it to re-enter the workforce offers a net benefit. In many cases, healthcare costs are artificially inflated because of a market failure called rent-seeking. This means we’re burdening citizens with high costs from corporations that are receiving subsidies in the form of research and development funded by tax dollars that come from those citizens because the corporations write the laws.

The world is free riding off our healthcare system.

Life expectancy and quality of life have never been better.

Controversial Issues

Universal Basic Income

“People in a society that has the means should have their basic needs met.”

“Being made to provide for others infringes on my freedom; people should earn their keep.”

“Humans are not free until self-actualization; if a society can provide freedom to all, it should.”

“Our society cannot afford to give enough money for everyone to live.”

“If technology automates the jobs and leaves profits, we can tax the capital for a freedom dividend.”

“If people don’t have to work, they won’t work: a Universal Basic Income is bad for progress”

“If people don’t have to work because they live in a rich successful society, they will be free to contribute back to the society that provided them that freedom.”


Do we live in a society that can afford financial freedom for every citizen? What effect would this have on purchasing power? Is it possible to tax capital in a way to lower the deficit, provide a Universal Basic Income, and grow the economy by incentivizing technological advancement? Is a UBI (Universal Basic Income) the first step in an unraveling of the global financial system to a chaotic meltdown, the beginning of the end of history, or has their not been enough technological advancement, so our society cannot yet afford it?

@argumentlabs, you forgot… [insert response here]