Elon Musk: Compulsory Quarantine is a Violation of Our Rights

This particular coronavirus issue that we're dealing with right now seems to be a great illuminator of that very fact. Is that there's so much data and there's so much that's open to interpret. There's so many things, because it's all happening in real time, right? And like particularly right now in California, we're in stage two tomorrow or Friday, two days from now. Stage two, retail stores opening up, things are changing. No one knows the correct process that needs to take place to save the most amount of lives, but yet ensure that our culture and that our economy survives. It's a lot of speculation and guessing, but if you go to certain places, they'll tell you we know why and we know this and we know it's hard. Yeah, I mean, in general, I think that's like we should be concerned about anything that's a massive infringement on our civil liberties. So it's like you got to put a lot of weight on that. A lot of people die when independence with the country and fight for the democracy that we have. And we should treasure that and not give up our liberties too easily. I think we probably did that actually. Well, I like what you said when you said that it should be a choice and that to require people to stay home, require people to not go to work, and to arrest people for trying to make a living, this all seems wrong. And I think it's a wrong approach. It's an infantilization of the society that that is going to tell you what to do. Fundamentally a violation of the Constitution, freedom of assembly. I don't think these things stand up in court, really. They're arresting people for protesting because they're protesting and violating social distancing and these mandates that tell people that they have to stay home. Yeah, these were definitely not stand up if the Supreme Court, I mean, it's obviously complete violation of rights. Yeah. And again, this is not in any way disrespecting the people who have died from this disease. It's certainly a real thing to think of. Yeah, I mean, it just should be if you're at risk, you should not be compelled to leave your house or leave a place of safety, but you should also not be if you're not at risk or if you are at risk and you wish to take a risk with your life, you should have the right to do that. And it seems like at this point in time, particularly, our resources would be best served protecting the people that are at risk versus penalizing the people that are not at high risk for living their life the way they did, particularly having a career and making a living and feeding your family, paying your bills, keeping your store open, keeping your restaurant open. Yes. I mean, there's a strong, a strong downside to this. Yeah. So. Yeah, I just believe like if this is a free country, you should be allowed to do what you want, as long as it does not endanger others. But that's the thing, right? People, this is the argument they will bring up, like you are endangering others. You should stay home for the people that even if you're fine, even if you know you're going to be OK, there's certain people that will not be OK because of your actions. They might get exposed to this thing that we don't have a vaccine for. We don't have universally accepted treatment for. And then we need to. There's two arguments, right? The one argument is we need to keep going, protect the weak, protect the sick, but let's open up the economy. The other argument is stop placing money over human lives and let's shelter in place until we come up with some sort of a decision and let's figure out some way to develop some sort of universal income, universal basic income plan or something like that to feed people during the during this time. Well, yes, transition. I think there's a. Yeah. As I said, my my opinion is if if somebody wants to stay home, they should stay home. I'd say it's something doesn't want to stay home. They should not be compelled to stay home. That's my opinion. Do you think if somebody doesn't like that? Well, that's my opinion. So the now. Yeah. This notion, though, that you can just sort of send checks out everybody and things will be fine. It's not true, obviously. The there's several have this absurd like view that the economy is like some magic horn of plenty like it just makes stuff stuff. You know, whatever it just there's a magic horn of plenty and the goods and services, they just come from this magic horn of plenty. And then if like somebody has more stuff than somebody else's because they took more from this magic horn of plenty. Now, let me just break it to the fools out there. If you don't make stuff, there's no stuff. Yeah. So if you don't make the food, if you don't process the food, you know, transport the food and the medical treatment, getting teeth fixed, there's no stuff. I would become detached from reality. You can't just legislate money and solve these things. If you don't make stuff, there is no stuff. Obviously, we'll run out of the stores, run out of the, you know, the machine just grinds to hold. But the initial thought on this virus, the real fear was that this was going to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people instantaneously in this country. It was going to do very quickly. If we didn't hunker down, if we didn't shelter in place, if we didn't quarantine ourselves or lockdown, do you think that the initial thought was a good idea based on the perception that this was going to be far more deadly than it turned out to be? Maybe I think briefly. Briefly. Briefly. But I think if you know any kind of like sensible examination of what happened in China would lead to the conclusion that that is obviously not going to occur. This virus originated in Wuhan. There's like 100,000 people a day leaving Wuhan. So it went everywhere very fast throughout China, throughout the rest of the world. And the fatality rate was low. Don't you think, though, it's difficult to appreciate? It's difficult to filter the information that's coming out of China to accurately really get a real true representation of what happened. The propaganda machine is very strong. Sure. What the World Health Organization appears to have been complicit with a lot of their propaganda. The thing is that American companies have massive supply chains in China, like Tesla, for example. We have hundreds of suppliers like tier one, two, three, four suppliers throughout China. So we know if they are able to make stuff or not. We know if they have issues or not. Then China is back at full steam. And pretty much every US company has some significant number of supplies in China. So you know if they're able to provide things or not, or if there's high mortality rate. Tesla has 7000 people in China. So zero people died. OK, so that that's a real statistic that's coming from. Yeah. Yeah. You know those people. Yeah. We literally run peril. Do you think there's a danger of this? Same folks are there. Do you think there's a danger of politicizing this, where it becomes like opening up the country's Donald Trump's. It's his goal. And then anything he does is sort of there's people that are going to oppose it and come up with some reasons why he's wrong, particularly in this climate, whereas as we're leading up November and you know the 2020 elections. Do you think that this is a real danger in terms of public's perception that Trump wants to open it up so they need jerk oppose it because they oppose Trump. I think there has been some. This has been politicized. You know both directions really. So it's which which is not great. Yeah. But like I said, separate apart from that, I think there's the question of like where do civil liberties fit in this picture. Yeah. And what what what can the government make you do? What can they make you not do and what what's what's OK. Right. And. Yeah, I think we went too far. Do you think it's one of those things where once we've gone in a certain direction, it's very difficult to make a correction, make an adjustment to realize like OK, we thought it was one thing it's not it's not good, but it's not what we thought it was going to be. It's not what we feared. So let's let's back up and reconsider. Let's do this publicly and say we were acting based on the information that we had initially. That information appears to be faulty. And here's how we move forward while protecting civil liberties, while protecting what essentially this country was founded on, which is a very agreed upon amount of freedom that we respect and appreciate. Absolutely.