Did the author seriously draw a parallel between a service business and general liberties? Plenty of businesses have chosen to require face masks for customers to enter. They can do the same
Ok- most people who say this can’t actually explain it. Let me preface this by saying I believe there is no encroachment of constitutional liberty by forcing masks- as do most experts. And the entire government body with the jurisdiction and sole task of upholding constitutional law. But here goes:
Fundamentally- any time the government tells a private citizen what they must do- there is an encroachment on freedom. To some degree- this is necessary by the nature of government and society- a government MUST have policing powers over citizens. The nuance is to what degree and when that is appropriate or when it is tyranny.
Now- Corona is new. We don’t “know” a lot about it. When aids was new- we didn’t know how it spread. It took decades of public announcements- and even today many people believe you can get aids from touching a person with it or sharing a drink or a toilet seat. But we didn’t know at first if it was airborn or water born or what. With Corona- we don’t “know” a lot. We can’t “prove it.” Like anything in medicine there are variables that effect things and conflicting studies exist to say masks are effective or masks aren’t effective.
Because the government can’t say that masks actually help, with certainty, many people believe that the public health agencies should not issue information based on “best guesses” and that ORDERING people to wear masks when they haven’t been PROVEN effective- and some studies show they COULD actually INCREASE risk- is forcing people to do something untested and potentially unsafe.
These “free the face” folks believe that it is an individuals right to decide based on data, if they feel that it is safe or not, needed or not, to wear masks- until or unless the government can PROVE that masks help or at the very least do not cause harm. This principal is very similar to the debate on seat belts, air bags, and bicycle/motorcycle helmet laws.
In abstract- we KNOW that certain diets and life styles are not healthy. So then- for the public good- can or should a government be able to force you to exercise regularly to a quota? Control the foods you can eat? Drinking alcohol Ione of the largest causes or precipitators to death and public harm in the nation. Should the government be able to forbid consuming alcohol?
They did. It didn’t work, caused more harm than good in the short term, and was ruled unconstitutional. But there is the nuance. You can use tobacco- one of the worlds leading killers. You can drink. In many states you can use marijuana. But heroine, cocaine, LSD, steroids... all illegal.
If a person makes the personal choice based on risks and rewards, to use steroids... why is it illegal? If a person wants to pop opioids all day... why is that a crime but drinking 40 gallons of Gin is legal?
In PRINCIPAL anyone for “free faces” must surely believe that steroids should be legal OTC. But... challenge them and they will tell you how that is different- or they’ll say they should because they are a true libertarian or anarchist and think people should be able to do whatever they want in their lives unless it directly impacts certain others.
But this isn’t a law. It is a legal order in an emergency. Many people are questioning if it is the RIGHT order- but if masks aren’t effective... the only thing that is effective would be a full hazmat suit or complete quarantine of the nation. And I think that forcing people to not leave the house AT ALL, FOR ANYTHING would not just be impractical- but a much larger impediment to personal liberty than having to wear a mask. So as I said- I don’t agree with the idea. I think some people are so lost they can’t see the forest through the trees- hung up on principal and detail and looking at ONLY the masks in a bubble without ring able to see a bigger picture.
But I can say that if we were ONLY talk about BROAD CONCEPTS and not specifics or legalities or precedents or anything within context- yes. Then we could have a theoretical discussion about wether a government forcing its citizens to do ANYTHING is trampling their rights. And I will concede that the “emergency powers” granted in the post 9/11 aftermath never were repealed by and large. So there IS precedent for concern that the powers that be would not retract the orders after the immediate need passed. Of course..
Using emergencies and conflicting data and such- speaking of 9/11... why can’t a citizen DECIDE wether they want to take off their shoes or be X-rayed? Hmm? Knowing that exposure to diagnostic imaging can cause health problems- why can’t I asses the risks and decide for myself? Why is the White House a no fly zone? Why can’t I fly over whenever I like on my private plane? Why can’t I decide wether I accept the risks of brining a gun to a school or leaving a loaded weapon unlocked at home with children in the house?
Beyond a superficial level... it’s ignorant basically. But... the upshot to that is a message for those terrified of government overreach. They may be able to force you not to be dangerously ignorant in public- but they can never force you not to be dangerously ignorant in your own mind. So the fact you live in a country where you have the freedom to advocate against public health measures in an emergency means that freedom is at least still doing ok for the moment.
The term liberty is usually defined for the US as the inalienable rights that men deserve, that our founding fathers wanted. How is a mask any different than forcing people to wear clothes? Freedom doesn't mean free to do whatever you want when your want, that's anarchy.
Preaching to the choir on that one. I often find that those preaching from the pulpits in the constitution have not read it let alone understood it. A large number of people seek to simply think that American democracy is based on a singular idea of absolute or near absolute freedom, or mistake any federal or state action as overreach on a lower jurisdiction.
The one thing I CAN say in balance if I were playing devils advocate and speaking for the folks who equate masks to tyranny- is that the clothing argument easily can be defeated by simply saying that forcing people to wear clothes could be called government overreach. While there are some hygienic or other benefits- the primary force behind most clothing laws is a sense of morality primarily rooted in religious ideals.
The City of San Francisco didn’t require clothing until well into the 2000’s- and you would on occasion see people walking about without any clothes amongst suites workers in the financial district, or strolling posh neighborhoods like Nob Hill. Clothing laws have most of their basis in ideas of “public decency” or censorship of the human body, or are often used as ways to justify legal actions against the homeless or mentally ill who otherwise aren’t causing issues. That said- a century ago, seeing a naked person walking down the street would most certainly cause public disturbance and even issues of safety- and today it still could.
Guest, I realize you wrote this a year ago but it still holds true today. That's a testament to it's validity. I don't recall ever reading these responses but it's interesting to do so now after a year or so.
.
My beef with these mandates is that 1. They don't involve the legislature. And 2. They put the inforcement on businesses.
.
Now, in 2022, we are looking at vaccine mandates that again are to be enforced by businesses which even further infringes on freedoms.
.
My proposal: pass a law! Make elected officials put their vote on the record. Then, put the responsibility of enforcement. Seat belts, helmets, clothes, haroin....are all legally enforced by trained police officers. Declaring an emergency power and mandating that the hostess at Applebee's enforce a mask or verify a vaccine card is both chicken $hit and over stepping elected power.
2 years in, and masks are still unproven. Things like personal hygiene, a healthy diet, and regular exercise are absolutely proven to aid in living through covid but I don't recall ever hearing a politician even recommend that (other than the very beginning of covid).
.
Covid has been politically weponized in an attempt to redraw voting bases. The long game is the same as it's been for centuries which is to retain and gain power. People would be smart to exercise a little critical thinking every time a person in power speaks.
@princessmonstertru-
It’s been awhile. Lol. Hi.
By and large I agree with much of hay you say.
When this all started, exercising temporary emergency power on incomplete facts was about the only option next to “wait and see.”
Statistically speaking, the draw backs of mandating masks didn’t really outweighs the potential benefits.
Time has marched on and what should have been temporary emergency powers used in response to an unexpected threat until better data was available have become standing orders that despite having the time to go through proper channels of law and process or be refined based on new study… have largely stayed in place.
With politicians everything is politics of course. Even if they aren’t warping a situation for their gain they will be tailoring the perception of their response to give them the best “optics.”
A temporary measure can’t be used as a permanent solution, especially when the problem keeps evolving as does our understanding.
End of day-
When it comes to rights and voter suppression and manipulation- there are far more pressing and dire examples we could be fighting as a society.
When it comes to the issue of critical thought- thinking critically is crucial- but WHAT we spend out time thinking critically about is perhaps even more so, HOW we direct these thoughts is important.
Remember the architects of “Pizza gate” and “lizard man” theories are in their own minds, “critical thinkers.”
But if we reframe the mask issue and examine it critically- what reason would I have to waste time fighting a mask mandate wether it worked or not? Thinking critically, it isn’t as pressing an issue as so many others and served to distract from more productive issues.
That’s my opinion anyway.
We spend the time foghting unproven mandates because tyrannical power is a slippery slope. Human history is full of cultures willing to give up their rights if they feel afraid enough.
Why else would we be seeing such a fierce objection to alternative ways to combat covid?
You already said why. Politics. It isn’t just one “side” of the issue which is being manipulated or using the issue for manipulation. That is critical thinking- realizing that BOTH “sides” of the issue are puppets or puppeteers using or being used for political purposes.
Tyranny IS a slippery slope.
We had an actual insurrection to overturn a legal election and still haven’t resolved all the outstanding issues with that.
We have laws being passed that threaten voter rights and people in positions to influence a vote who “right” and “left” don’t trust to the job.
We have the first and second amendment rights threatened- far more useful in combating future tyranny to have those than a bare face.
There are countless examples of overreach and abuse in the system that impact millions. Less than mask laws but far more severely.
The fact that any serious narrative would focus on masks of all things should indicate a poor choice of priorities.
As said above, critical thinking as a whole is more than just how you think about one issue- it’s about how you prioritize what you think about.
When you ask critically why this issue is THE issue of all issues to use to fight tyranny- you’d likely conclude that there is little gain against tyranny to be had here. So why so much debate and media and political charge around it?
Because it is a political issue being used by people who on one side are flying a slogan of “safety” and “consideration” and on the other are billing themselves and supporters as “freedom fighters” and “independent thinkers” when in fact, what we have is a bunch of people who bought those lines fighting for the political interests of those who know it’s all crap but to them, is useful crap that can control people and aim the discourse where they want it.
Why would there be such fierce discourse? Why did people go beanie baby crazy and why do fans of sports teams fight and riot?
Most People will fight or follow anything if you draw a line and say “us and them” or convince them it’s important.
Rich powerful people and clever manipulative people have the means and skills to see an opportunity to use public sentiment to their own gains and people as a mob tend to be able to be made to follow.
Why is a mask the only legally mandated piece of clothing being argued over?
Why aren’t we using this debate to reject the tyranny of wearing shoes in businesses? If there is any health risk to people not wearing pants or a shirt or shoes- isn’t that their choice, mitigated if others wear clothing, risking only those who choose. It to?
It’s all rather silly isn’t it?
When lord of people argue over silly things, someone on the shadows counts the money or power it has gained them to feed the flames.
Let free market economics do its work
.
My beef with these mandates is that 1. They don't involve the legislature. And 2. They put the inforcement on businesses.
.
Now, in 2022, we are looking at vaccine mandates that again are to be enforced by businesses which even further infringes on freedoms.
.
My proposal: pass a law! Make elected officials put their vote on the record. Then, put the responsibility of enforcement. Seat belts, helmets, clothes, haroin....are all legally enforced by trained police officers. Declaring an emergency power and mandating that the hostess at Applebee's enforce a mask or verify a vaccine card is both chicken $hit and over stepping elected power.
.
Covid has been politically weponized in an attempt to redraw voting bases. The long game is the same as it's been for centuries which is to retain and gain power. People would be smart to exercise a little critical thinking every time a person in power speaks.
It’s been awhile. Lol. Hi.
By and large I agree with much of hay you say.
When this all started, exercising temporary emergency power on incomplete facts was about the only option next to “wait and see.”
Statistically speaking, the draw backs of mandating masks didn’t really outweighs the potential benefits.
Time has marched on and what should have been temporary emergency powers used in response to an unexpected threat until better data was available have become standing orders that despite having the time to go through proper channels of law and process or be refined based on new study… have largely stayed in place.
With politicians everything is politics of course. Even if they aren’t warping a situation for their gain they will be tailoring the perception of their response to give them the best “optics.”
A temporary measure can’t be used as a permanent solution, especially when the problem keeps evolving as does our understanding.
When it comes to rights and voter suppression and manipulation- there are far more pressing and dire examples we could be fighting as a society.
When it comes to the issue of critical thought- thinking critically is crucial- but WHAT we spend out time thinking critically about is perhaps even more so, HOW we direct these thoughts is important.
Remember the architects of “Pizza gate” and “lizard man” theories are in their own minds, “critical thinkers.”
But if we reframe the mask issue and examine it critically- what reason would I have to waste time fighting a mask mandate wether it worked or not? Thinking critically, it isn’t as pressing an issue as so many others and served to distract from more productive issues.
That’s my opinion anyway.
Why else would we be seeing such a fierce objection to alternative ways to combat covid?
Tyranny IS a slippery slope.
We had an actual insurrection to overturn a legal election and still haven’t resolved all the outstanding issues with that.
We have laws being passed that threaten voter rights and people in positions to influence a vote who “right” and “left” don’t trust to the job.
We have the first and second amendment rights threatened- far more useful in combating future tyranny to have those than a bare face.
There are countless examples of overreach and abuse in the system that impact millions. Less than mask laws but far more severely.
The fact that any serious narrative would focus on masks of all things should indicate a poor choice of priorities.
When you ask critically why this issue is THE issue of all issues to use to fight tyranny- you’d likely conclude that there is little gain against tyranny to be had here. So why so much debate and media and political charge around it?
Because it is a political issue being used by people who on one side are flying a slogan of “safety” and “consideration” and on the other are billing themselves and supporters as “freedom fighters” and “independent thinkers” when in fact, what we have is a bunch of people who bought those lines fighting for the political interests of those who know it’s all crap but to them, is useful crap that can control people and aim the discourse where they want it.
Why would there be such fierce discourse? Why did people go beanie baby crazy and why do fans of sports teams fight and riot?
Rich powerful people and clever manipulative people have the means and skills to see an opportunity to use public sentiment to their own gains and people as a mob tend to be able to be made to follow.
Why is a mask the only legally mandated piece of clothing being argued over?
Why aren’t we using this debate to reject the tyranny of wearing shoes in businesses? If there is any health risk to people not wearing pants or a shirt or shoes- isn’t that their choice, mitigated if others wear clothing, risking only those who choose. It to?
It’s all rather silly isn’t it?
When lord of people argue over silly things, someone on the shadows counts the money or power it has gained them to feed the flames.