From medical practices to grocery shipments, governments are loosening restrictions in order to keep goods and services affordable. But if these restrictions are unnecessary now, why claim they are ever necessary?
Pete Quinones and Jeff Deist discuss the government’s response to the coronavirus.
We are about to enter a production slowdown—a collapse, really—not because some businesses miscalculated their investments, but because government intervened drastically and without warning to shut down all businesses.
The state has used this virus scare to demand that politicians and bureaucrats be given near-total control over every aspect of life, including virtually every business and employer in America. Will this now be a permanent feature of American life?
There is a reason to panic. But the panic should be over how governments—who know so very little about the virus that they have decided warrants destroying the global economy—will create many new threats to health and well-being through their policies.
Between the regulation of business and penalties for rising income, anti-poverty policies in America make it so that many workers have no clear path to escape poverty.
Allowing the market to operate with minimal government intervention has helped Chile become one of the freest and wealthiest countries in South America, especially when compared to its direct neighbors.
Antisecessionists insist that radical decentralization means more "nationalism" and protectionism. In practice, the exact opposite is more likely.
