 Couple of other calls came out one today, one, I think it was yesterday, the day before, one by David Henderson, a libertarian economist, and then today by Don Watkins, my friend and co-author, that suggests that it's time, maybe it's always been time, to reopen the economy. And let me just say absolutely, I never thought the economy should be shut down, it's about time. We need more voices. So it's time unequivocally to open the economy. And it's not about opening the economy, because I think particularly the left likes to focus this on economics and present this health versus economics, dead people versus economics. But I think Alex Epstein made a good point on this show, I don't know, a month ago, over a month ago. This is about values. This is about individual values. This is about individual life. This is about opening up your life, returning you to a state of freedom to make choices about your life, about your values, about the pursuit of your happiness. And the economy is a big part of that, because we know that our lives work and, you know, all the values that come from work are an incredibly important part of our pursuit of happiness and our pursuit of life, in our ability to pursue all our values. And that the lockdowns have basically made us all, not all of us, but many of us, wards of the state. They've created massive unemployment, which is then the pain of that is mitigated by the fact that we just get a check in a bank account automatically without even knowing, fund the government with money so we can live as if all that's necessary is the money, as if there's an end to supply of the stuff so they can keep paying us, as if it's a substitute for freedom. And indeed, one of my biggest concerns about something like UBI is that once the government is paying our bills, once the government is sending us checks every month, well the government owns us, controls us. Why can't it tell us what we can and cannot do, how we live, what values we pursue, how we use the money and everything else? So it's time to liberate us, to leave us alone, to free us. Now that has risk involved with it. Some people at the margin are going to die. Some hospitals might get overloaded, they wouldn't get overloaded if we have these lockdowns in place. That is the price we pay. And I think it's a legitimate price because it's a price that we're paying not for freedoms, not for liberty. It's a price that we pay for having a mixed economy. It's the price that we pay for having the government involved in healthcare, because a capitalist economy wouldn't result, I don't believe, in significant hospital overloads, wouldn't involve shortages. We'll talk about shortages in a minute and how even today there's no reason, zero reason for shortages. But if there are hospital overloads, if more people die than necessary, the blame, the more responsibility of that is that anybody who advocates for a mixed economy, anybody who advocates for more government intervention in healthcare, or for the existing level of government intervention in healthcare, a free market healthcare system, would handle what is thrown at it. And again, okay, we might need in certain places where the level of emergency is so extreme, short-term lockups so that hospitals can catch up, given that the government is already involved in hospitals. But 90% of this country is not there. 90% of country is not in an emergency situation that requires lockdowns the last two months. We do not sacrifice as those who stand for individualism, those who stand for individual freedom and individual liberty, and individual rights at the core of all that. We are not proponents of sacrificing the majority or sacrificing anybody for the sake of somebody else. But in this case, sacrificing the majority for the sake of less hospital stress and fewer deaths. People are going to die. People are going to die because we have an FDA. People are going to die because we have a CDC. People, you know, in the CDC might exist in a free market, but in a completely different structure. People are going to die because we have Medicare and Medicaid. And we have certificates of need that determine how many beds hospitals can have. And we have government involvement in healthcare up the kazoo. So that's why they're going to die. Not because lockdowns are eliminated. Not because individual Americans are free to live their lives as the founders intended them. So I think that lockdowns need to be eliminated tomorrow in 95% of this country. There's some hot spots that one would have to think about how to do it in a way that didn't create complete havoc. Maybe sections of New York, New Jersey, Detroit, New Orleans. I don't know. You'd have to get a complete update on these places, but everybody else should be freed. Now I'm going to say something. Whoops, I'm going to say something I don't usually say. The Trump administration today, I think it was or maybe it was yesterday. Their proposal to open up the economy is actually pretty good. Wow. I said it. I said something good about the Trump administration. Now I'll caveat that, of course, by saying that they only want to implement this opening up the economy under certain conditions, 14 days of downward trajectory and down the trajectory of syndrome cases and on and on and on all these conditions placed on when to open up the economy. But if we just took their plan and I'm going to read you parts of this plan and just implement it tomorrow, I'd give it a thumbs up. I would be absolutely supportive of that. What would it evolve? So here is, oops, so here is what they write, right? Phase one, right? This is the phase one. You could do all these phases at once, phase one. And notice, notice the extreme similarity, funnily enough, weirdly enough, maybe somebody in the White House is listening to this podcast. Notice the stunning similarity between this proposal and what I have been saying for six to eight weeks. Phase one, what do individuals do? One, all vulnerable individuals, i.e., old and with pre-existing conditions, they can't say that. It's not politically correct to call people old and to treat people differently. But all vulnerable individuals, old people and people with pre-existing conditions should continue to shelter in place. So if you're 65 and over, suddenly if you're 70 and older, don't leave the house. And if you value your life and if you live in a crowded place, this might evolve a long time of staying at home because until we have a vaccine or until there's some kind of herd immunity. But number one, on Trump's plan, he's basically quoting me. I'm shocked. All vulnerable individuals should continue to shelter in place. Members of households with vulnerable residents should be aware that by returning to work or other environments where distancing is not practical, they could carry the values back home. Absolutely true. But causes should be taken to isolate from vulnerable residents. I've been saying this for weeks. Either move them out into a hotel room or something or lock them up in a room in the house or make or wear masks, wear gloves, isolate the people who are vulnerable within the household from the people who are out working and out about. So, I mean finally some common sense. I'm copying the super chat questions onto a different board because otherwise they disappear on me. Second, all individuals when in public, parks, outdoor recreation areas, shopping areas, should maximize physical distance from others. Social settings are more than 10 people where appropriate distancing may not be practical, should be avoided and less precautionary embarrasses observed. Wow! How reasonable is that? Just stay away from people when you're in public. Social distancing. We can all do that voluntarily. And indeed this says, you know, people should appropriate distances. They're not trying to tell you how much. They're not trying to force it on you. They're asking you that if you value your life, if you value the lives of other people in your society around you, behave. Point number three, avoid socializing groups of more than 10 people in circumstances that do not readily allow for appropriate physical distancing. Very reasonable. Again, I don't think this needs to be entrenched in law, but only enforced by the police, but just follow common sense within this pandemic. Don't hang out with 10 people in close contact. Minimize non-essential travel. Don't zero out out and adhere to the CDC guidelines regarding isolation following travel. So just, you know, travel cautiously, particularly in the beginning. I mean, wow. And then for employers, it says, number one, continue to encourage telework whenever possible and feasible with business operations. Makes sense. I mean, you don't want your employees getting sick. You don't want your employees causing you to get sick. It's better if it's possible to telework, then let's do it. It might be even a solution for after the pandemic is gone. Maybe productivity is even higher with telework. Who knows? If possible, they write, return to work in phases. Again, a recommendation, not a bad one. You don't want to crowd the office all at once. Close common areas where personnel are likely to congregate and interact. Okay? Again, reasonable. Minimize non-essential travel and adhere, you know, the same thing. And then strongly consider special accommodations for personnel who are members of a vulnerable population. In other words, if they're older 65 or have heart disease or diabetes or obese, then, you know, find ways to isolate them more or, you know, they don't return to work. And Jonathan asked a question of how does egalitarianism play into this hugely, because the idea of discrimination, the idea of treating your vulnerable employees differently than your regular employees, your non-volatile, is unacceptable to the egalitarians. Everybody must be treated the same, even if that means sacrificing millions and millions of people to the few who are vulnerable. And in this case, the not-so-few who are vulnerable. So that's employers, reasonable accommodations. I can't think of any other way to add. What about specific types of employers? So here they're saying schools and organized youth activities, they should stay closed if they're already closed. I don't agree with this. I think they should open immediately. I don't think children are a problem. Children at issue don't hire to take care of those children, people who are members of vulnerable populations. So if a teacher is obese, has diabetes or has heart disease, she should probably stay home. If the teacher is young and healthy, what's the problem? So open up schools, open up camps, open up kindergartens, open them up now. Here's one, visits to senior living facilities and hospitals should be prohibited. I agree completely, not by law, but by the senior living facility and by the hospital. Now again, I've been recommending this in the beginning. Let's isolate the vulnerable, primarily those above 870. Keep them in isolation. Make sure they don't interact with people who have not been vetted, vetted through testing, vetted through the appropriate hygiene. Those who do interact with residents and patients must adhere to strict protocols regarding hygiene. Absolutely. I mean, look at the catastrophes that have happened in our senior facilities and senior living facilities all across the country. Easy. Just lock them down. Large venues should operate under strict physical distancing protocols. Fine. Shouldn't be that hard. Let the venues figure it out. After all, remember it was the NBA that suspended the season before the lockdowns even started. So you'd think that NBA stadiums, football stadiums, baseball stadiums, configure our mechanisms. Maybe, maybe they can even test. Maybe they can test in advance. Who knows what they will come up with? Who knows what the market will come up with? Just be safe. And if you're not safe, people won't come. So you as a owner of a venue have a strong incentive to be safe. Elective surgeries should resume. Now here they say they can resume, but only in outpatient facilities. I think that's too broad. I think in places where the hospitals are overcrowded, like in New York, they should only resume in outpatient facilities, but places where their hospitals are still doing fine or not overcrowded, just maybe stressed a little. There's no reason not to start elective surgeries in hospitals for now, until there's signs of real stress. Gyms can open if they adhere to strict physical distancing and sanitary protocols. Absolutely. Bars should remain closed. Why? Well, maybe because people when they drink a knot don't use their common sense. I'd say open restaurants, open bars, and just have those businesses use their self-interested motivation to socially distance people, spread out the tables more, only take on fewer guests, make sure that the tables are distant from one another. By the way, in phase two of Trump's recommendation, again, all vulnerable individuals should continue to shelter in place. Absolutely. And the same stuff about members of the household. Absolutely. All individuals running public should maximize physical distance, right? And here they say, non-essential travel can resume. And I agree. But this should be tomorrow, not in phase two. And then they say, let's see, they said something about restaurants. Yeah, bars. Bars may operate with diminished standing room occupancy. We're applicable and appropriate. But again, that should be left to the bar to figure out what's the best way, the same as they leave it to a gym to figure out what's the best way. So I, I like, I like this. I like this protocol. I just think it should be implemented now, immediately. Open up the restaurants. Just, I think it makes common sense for the restaurants to voluntarily take on fewer clients. Now that means higher prices probably, because otherwise the restaurants couldn't survive. But that's fine. That's part of how you limit the demand. One way, if a restaurant usually takes 100 customers a night to only have 50 customers a night is to double the price or to raise the price by 25%. And fewer people want to come and then use socially distance through the pricing mechanism. Isn't price mechanism a beautiful, beautiful thing? So from a rights perspective, from an economics perspective, from an individual liberties perspective, it is time to open up. It was always time to open up this economy, to stop this ridiculous shutdown and to let individuals make choices, make individuals make decisions for themselves while focusing on a robust educational effort around vulnerable populations, how to protect them, how to shield them, how to isolate them, and how to prevent young people who are now going out from infecting them. I've been suggesting this from day one. Now, in addition, what we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations, any man or woman who values his life, and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. Well, using the super chat and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to Iranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com, Iranbrookshow, and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not showing the next...