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.
Let free market economics do its work