3 ms·

It's not the mask that does harm. It's the temptation by authorities to make blanket mandates that can easily encroach too far in an effort to cover as many sce

It's not the mask that does harm. It's the temptation by authorities to make blanket mandates that can easily encroach too far in an effort to cover as many scenarios as possible for legal purposes. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just in their best interests to make it as easy as possible to interpret and enforce. It's also not at all cut-and-dried what a "public space" is, so that's a bitter argument that will be had. There is a lot of public space that is wide-open and sparsely travelled. Does this need a mandatory mask mandate? If we were all perfectly rational this would not be that difficult, but we're not. Given current and recent events in the U.S., it's also probably best not to give the police even more reason to be able to stop and question folks for what is a very minor infraction. With something like mask mandates, it's a highly visible signal that must be obeyed by every single person, so it's prone to enforcement abuse. In general, it's just not worth it to get flu numbers down, particularly when we weren't really scared as a society about the flu before now. As always, if you're sick stay home or even wear a mask out. Laws to enforce this? Not so much.

HWR_14 5y ago
You've said that a fine-tuned mask mandate is too hard to write and enforce. You didn't address the underlying question of what the harm of a mask mandate is. Like, suppose I grant that it's difficult, and 80% of the time isn't needed. My question is then "and who cares?" My insurance isn't needed a far greater percentage of the time, nor is my wearing a seatbelt. What I'm getting at is if it were just a permanent law like "wear a shirt (if female)" or "wear pants" what's the harm?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Wearing a mask is a lot more onerous than wearing a seat belt, shirt, or pants.
- stolenmerch 5y ago
  This is getting a bit silly here, but for starters, people wear clothes regardless of a law so that's not a good comparison. Also, to put it very bluntly, I don't think the number of lives saved is worth the social costs I've already enumerated.
- tjs8rj 5y ago
  Why not a mandate to wear 2 masks? Or a mandate that you should wear surgical gloves everywhere (non latex for the allergic of course)? Don’t you realize how many lives could be saved with these minor inconveniences? What’s the harm? Why not a mandate to require wearing a jacket out in the winter? Not only could you injure yourself, but you put others at risk if they have drive through the harsh conditions to save you if frostbite gets you - and most wear their jacket out anyways when it’s so cold, so what’s the harm? While we’re at it: perhaps we make owning too much alcohol illegal. Getting too drunk is widely considered best to avoid (it sucks to throw up!), so no harm done, and you wouldn’t be able to harm yourself or others with dangerous intoxication levels. No harm done right? How about we just mandate washing hands after the bathroom - it’s pretty gross and think of all the sickness it causes, and there’s really no inconvenience with the sick right there and all. Where’s the harm? These all lie on a spectrum. Why not ban cars? Why not require toothbrushing? Why not requiring people to take the vaccine (if it’s safe for their situation)? Why not require saying hello to people you pass on the right side of the sidewalk? Why not mandate snapping your fingers and doing jazz hands to get others attention when someone is about to step in gum? Why not mandate wearing your shirt inside out each Wednesday in order to slightly prolong the life of your clothing and thereby save planetary resources for future generations? Just because something isn’t that inconvenient (by your standards nonetheless) doesn’t justify the state mandating it and implicitly enforcing it with the threat of imprisonment. Should you go to jail for not wearing a mask for flu season? That’s why it shouldn’t be a mandate: because the state has not right to coerce people with the threat of violence for innane actions no matter how harmless the act may be. If you don’t wear a mask for flu season (or any other regular disease we vaccinate against and is part of regular life), does the govt fine you? And if you don’t pay that fine presumably they take you to jail? Should people go to jail for not wearing a mask for the flu? If not, then there shouldn’t be a mask mandate for it - even if you think there’s no harm.

HWR_14 5y ago

You've said that a fine-tuned mask mandate is too hard to write and enforce. You didn't address the underlying question of what the harm of a mask mandate is. Like, suppose I grant that it's difficult, and 80% of the time isn't needed. My question is then "and who cares?" My insurance isn't needed a far greater percentage of the time, nor is my wearing a seatbelt. What I'm getting at is if it were just a permanent law like "wear a shirt (if female)" or "wear pants" what's the harm?

josephcsible 5y ago
Wearing a mask is a lot more onerous than wearing a seat belt, shirt, or pants.
stolenmerch 5y ago
This is getting a bit silly here, but for starters, people wear clothes regardless of a law so that's not a good comparison. Also, to put it very bluntly, I don't think the number of lives saved is worth the social costs I've already enumerated.
tjs8rj 5y ago
Why not a mandate to wear 2 masks? Or a mandate that you should wear surgical gloves everywhere (non latex for the allergic of course)? Don’t you realize how many lives could be saved with these minor inconveniences? What’s the harm? Why not a mandate to require wearing a jacket out in the winter? Not only could you injure yourself, but you put others at risk if they have drive through the harsh conditions to save you if frostbite gets you - and most wear their jacket out anyways when it’s so cold, so what’s the harm? While we’re at it: perhaps we make owning too much alcohol illegal. Getting too drunk is widely considered best to avoid (it sucks to throw up!), so no harm done, and you wouldn’t be able to harm yourself or others with dangerous intoxication levels. No harm done right? How about we just mandate washing hands after the bathroom - it’s pretty gross and think of all the sickness it causes, and there’s really no inconvenience with the sick right there and all. Where’s the harm? These all lie on a spectrum. Why not ban cars? Why not require toothbrushing? Why not requiring people to take the vaccine (if it’s safe for their situation)? Why not require saying hello to people you pass on the right side of the sidewalk? Why not mandate snapping your fingers and doing jazz hands to get others attention when someone is about to step in gum? Why not mandate wearing your shirt inside out each Wednesday in order to slightly prolong the life of your clothing and thereby save planetary resources for future generations? Just because something isn’t that inconvenient (by your standards nonetheless) doesn’t justify the state mandating it and implicitly enforcing it with the threat of imprisonment. Should you go to jail for not wearing a mask for flu season? That’s why it shouldn’t be a mandate: because the state has not right to coerce people with the threat of violence for innane actions no matter how harmless the act may be. If you don’t wear a mask for flu season (or any other regular disease we vaccinate against and is part of regular life), does the govt fine you? And if you don’t pay that fine presumably they take you to jail? Should people go to jail for not wearing a mask for the flu? If not, then there shouldn’t be a mask mandate for it - even if you think there’s no harm.