> you serve an economy because if you don't, you starve
Sounds like a problem with the economy. Economies are human constructs. With enough consensus they can be shaped in different ways. Quantitive easing is one instrument, but still very much within the rules. The rules can be bent further with consensus
> The government stepping in and saying "NOPE! WE KNOW BEST!" and then basically forcing every citizen to restructure their lives for something that couldn't even remotely be contained just shows the abuse of power.
Mask mandates and lockdowns in some western democracies outside of the US have worked exceedingly well, but they by-in-large had less quarrelsome (and smaller) populations
> The majority of the COVID deaths can be attributed to the old, obese, and sickly people. But most institutions serve people outside of that set.
It seems you largely agree that there's a moral dimension here. You may not agree there's malleability to how an economy functions - but once again, economies are a part of the social compact. If people decide that their parents, their kids' grandparents, the immunocompromised, etc. are worth saving, they may hold a different view than sheer social darwinism