5 ms·

>But masks for the most part weren’t either. It’s private companies that choose to have this policy, yet it somehow is now presented as something fundamentally

>But masks for the most part weren’t either. It’s private companies that choose to have this policy, yet it somehow is now presented as something fundamentally different from other, private, clothing rules? Ah... But the masks were mandated by local governments. To the point where people of color were frightened because of pre-existing anti-mask laws, which were historically used to provide a mechanism for selective enforcement against minorities. Yes. That happened. New York was one such state, Oregon I think was another https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/states-with-anti-mask-laws https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/states-with... This alone elevates it above the realm of no shirt, no shoes, no service, or other dress codes, which never had force of paw in the first place. This is also why I brought up the post-script note in my original post; after a certain point, tight collusion or commonality in policy enforcement by privately owned business starts to look an awful lot like de-facto public policy. >The HUGE difference is, that with COVID, the people not following science, common sense, or decency now actually kill other people. So when are we going to start holding everyone accountable for the use of child labor by suppliers for Nabisco/Nestle? I'm bringing this up not as whataboutism, but to illustrate that the length of the chain of blame in who killed who is itself a political question, and taken to it's terminus says everyone who supports Nestle supports use of child labor in Africa. Now don't get me wrong here; I wear masks if for no other reason than I know it makes others more comfortable, but I do find I resonate with the camp of people against public health measures being anything but voluntary, I find that ethically speaking it puts medicine in a bad spot to do it any other way. >I absolutely disagree with the assertion that you somehow have the right to kill me or others. Never asserted I had that right tbqh, but I do wish to point something out: nowhere do you have a "right to safety from others." The closest you've got is an explicit right to the pursuit of happiness, which to you happiness may include safety from others; you are not guaranteed that, but you are guaranteed the freedom to pursue it. Just as those with a contrary definition are guaranteed the freedom to pursue theirs. That's the fundamental problem with your assertion. You assert I must have the right to do it, and I'm infringing on a negative sense right you have. The reality is we're both hypothetically just pursuing our own definition of happiness. Somebody comes in without a mask? You're free to relocate. You the proprietor? To a point, you're free to to refuse service. Welcome to why America was dubbed "land of the free, home of the brave", and why there are phrases like "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance". Law, rights, etc are explicitly minimally carved/spelled out. It's intended details get worked out not necessarily in the political arena, but betwixt ourselves as reasonable people. With that comes the responsibility to do things sometimes you don't want or have to do, but also to accept that that thing you really want isn't okay to just force on other people. If we value liberty, some sacrifice will need to be made. The thing about public policy though, is that once made (remember those anti-mask laws?) it is infrequently repealed. Again. Nice things. We cannot have. Because this sort of thing.

nautilius 5y ago
> I do wish to point something out: nowhere do you have a "right to safety from others." I don’t know where you got that impression, but in many states you can go so far as to legally kill someone, anywhere, as long as you can make the case that you “felt threatened”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
- salawat 5y ago
  You will find fewer states than you think have that policy, and I assure you, if you employed that particular legal strategy to justify use of deadly force against a non-mask wearer, you'd... Well... Good luck. I have a feeling you'd have an uphill battle. But let's look at that more closely, shalt we? Stand your Ground usually comes into play when there is a clear, present, and immediate danger. The immediacy part is what I'd see as lacking in your scenario. Further, Stand your Ground doesn't guarantee you safety in the sense of bestowing or making an explicit right. Rather, it guarantees you safe harbor for reasonable employment of lethal force in self-defense, and making clear you have no duty to retreat first. That reasonable bit is generally always at the heart of the matter, one; but more importantly, this guarantees you the chance to secure your safety rather than remaining passive in a life-or-death situation, which the statute acknowledges as possible by its mere existence. Ergo. No right to safety, but a reification of the right to pursue it, up to and including reasonable employment of lethal force.

nautilius 5y ago

> I do wish to point something out: nowhere do you have a "right to safety from others." I don’t know where you got that impression, but in many states you can go so far as to legally kill someone, anywhere, as long as you can make the case that you “felt threatened”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

salawat 5y ago
You will find fewer states than you think have that policy, and I assure you, if you employed that particular legal strategy to justify use of deadly force against a non-mask wearer, you'd... Well... Good luck. I have a feeling you'd have an uphill battle. But let's look at that more closely, shalt we? Stand your Ground usually comes into play when there is a clear, present, and immediate danger. The immediacy part is what I'd see as lacking in your scenario. Further, Stand your Ground doesn't guarantee you safety in the sense of bestowing or making an explicit right. Rather, it guarantees you safe harbor for reasonable employment of lethal force in self-defense, and making clear you have no duty to retreat first. That reasonable bit is generally always at the heart of the matter, one; but more importantly, this guarantees you the chance to secure your safety rather than remaining passive in a life-or-death situation, which the statute acknowledges as possible by its mere existence. Ergo. No right to safety, but a reification of the right to pursue it, up to and including reasonable employment of lethal force.