Not a matter of intent on my part but on the impulse of people not just to consider their own situation, but to force (that is what a law is) others to conform to that position.

Whether wearing a seat belt or helmet or mask is a good idea or not isn't the relevant issue.

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with[Pg 18] any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

On Liberty, John Stuart Mill

@tracycoyle Ooh, good essay! But this part stands out to me: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

If we run our examples through this test...

1. Helmet laws do NOT prevent harm to others, only harm to the member that the law "protects" - the driver/operator of the motorcycle or bicycle.

2. Seatbelt laws MIGHT prevent harm to others, but probably not. A seatbelt could save you from flying through the windshield or out he window in an auto accident. Your free flying body might cause damage to someone else, but... probably fairly unlikely.

3. Mask laws WOULD prevent harm to others. The idea of wearing the mask is to prevent you, a potentially infected person, from exhaling the highly contagious virus out where someone else could come into contact with it. - This comes from information that people can be contagious before showing symptoms of the disease.

So... this essay is actually making another good point for mask laws - though a point against the already-existing helmet and seatbelt laws.

@RavenMStark The key word here is 'prevent'. I can make the argument against allowing bats or hammers to be produced and sold because that would 'prevent' the possibility of them being used to harm someone. Note, I could replace bats and hammers with guns and people would say Yeah! to that, but not the bat and hammer because they have other purposes. But the 'prevent' needs to proximate both in time and space. You can't establish a measure to prevent some theoretical event from happening at some unspecified time IF you can't establish some connection to the "law".

So, helmet and seat belt laws fail - but were passed on the argument that injuries would be more expensive and the cost would be born by the general public (because people didn't have insurance and hospitals are required to treat people) - the harm is the general welfare. I don't agree with the argument or even the premise.

Now, the mask has to prevent me from hurting you - but we have no evidence that I am a threat to you. Of course, I might get sick and decide to infect as many others as I can. How can we prevent that?

Well, WE could wear masks, maintain social distancing and sanitize all the time.

Where does the responsibility lie? I would argue it relies on US, to protect ourselves, NOT create a law that assumes we are all a threat to each other.

Know what principle is in play here?

Two actually: one a general one we all should know, a second that is Tracy's SECOND Rule

First: arguably, the right to life the most important, and the attached responsibility is: self defense. We have government to combine our force/capacity to prevent harm to the United States. But we can't abdicate that personal responsibility (though many/most/majority think they can).

Second, Tracy's 2nd Rule: Allow no harm, unless it necessary for Rule #1.

@tracycoyle In my understanding, the evidence that I am a threat to you is that there's a pandemic that we're trying to control. The simplest way to prevent spreading the virus is to wear masks, sanitize, and do social distance.

If everyone in the community agreed to do these things, it would make it harder for the virus to spread. I wear a mask because I think it is a logical choice and morally right to do it. However, a large number of people don't seem to want to take responsibility for the wellbeing of the community. I don't understand this opinion, but it's pretty common.

Since that's the case, I don't see why a local authority (governor or mayor) shouldn't take action to try to protect their communities, as needed.

Instead of comparing Covid to selling hammers and bats, I would compare the virus situation to second-hand smoking. Laws were passed to ban smoking in public places because of the potential risk that me smoking could harm your health as well as mine.

How is the virus different from second-hand smoke?

@RavenMStark It is about responsibility: who is responsible for your well being? If there were solid evidence we could make good arguments - but there is at best conflicting evidence, in many ways NO evidence but application of practices used elsewhere.

The risk of second-hand smoke was way over-blown. I grew up with two smoking parents, all my sibs smoke. I am the only one of 8 that never did. I am not saying my experience should be a determining factor - but you are! (in the mask case)

250,000 people died of the annual flu over the last 5 years. We don't use masks, we had not lockdowns, we didn't use social distancing. People panicked and now they are trying to justify their actions retroactively. Sorry, I'm not buying and I protect my neighbors in my senior complex.

@tracycoyle I am responsible for my wellbeing, sure. But I'm also responsible for the wellbeing of my community. I'm not legally allowed to get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car because it doesn't only potentially harm me, but there is risk that I could cause property damage or kill someone else.

This flu is different than those flus. This one has already killed 132,000 in the USA so far. That's 132,000 people in approximately 4 months. The math should explain why we're wearing masks and doing social distancing now when we haven't done it before over the past 5 years.

You don't have to buy that if you don't want to. I just don't understand why you wouldn't.

@RavenMStark I don't think we can change each other's minds on the masks - but I will offer the following: do you suggest that someone talk to the police IF THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE, and assume quilt if they refuse, ie, plead the 5th? Why is there a presumption of innocence? Just to provoke thought.

As to your comment - no, you are NOT responsible for the wellbeing of your community. You can not bear that burden, nor should you try. By being a responsible member of the community, you help create an environment by which the community can prosper. You are responsible for yourself, and no one else. We get married, and we take upon ourselves the wellbeing of another, and in the case of children, the responsibility to care and raise them. But with those exceptions - you can not take responsibility that rightly belongs to another.

Too many people try.

@tracycoyle You're right. We can't change each other's minds, but I think I should at least try to do a little bit of a better job at listening! I say this because I think I don't yet 100% understand your POV. I might be about 85% of the way there. I want to understand it, even if I don't agree. So, this will be my goal proceeding forward in this conversation!

To answer your question: I would suggest someone talk to the police if they felt comfortable with it and had nothing to hide. If someone pleads the 5th, I don't automatically assume guilt. It can sometimes be suspicious, but that is not evidence of guilt. - Thought provoked. Go on...

And you do make a good point about responsibility. You are well spoken! But I think I may have used some wording that was a bit too broad. Let me try again with different words.

I am responsible for any personal action I take that could cause harm to my community. I also think it's a mark of good character, civility, and patriotism to care about and help take care of one's community. If my community goes down the drain, I'm not responsible for that- just for the acts I took to contribute to it going under.

@RavenMStark Thank you, and I agree.

5th: we assume innocence. One of the reasons we have quarantine laws is to all health officials the ability to isolate sick people in order to slow or stop the spread of illness. TB was the last major illness for which this was, and still is, used. But those laws apply to the sick, not the healthy. Isolating 95% of the population because 2% MIGHT be sick, is both counter productive to a functioning economy, and a terrible waste of time and energy.

Given the majority of deaths have occurred in nursing homes around the country (remember the first big outbreak was in a nursing home in Washington State (how the hell it got THERE I'd still like to know - contact tracing ANYONE?). But instead of a major effort to help those people, we told workers to stay home. If it was so dangerous to be around others, why were grocery stores and hardware stores exempt? I get the idea that then provided necessary goods - but where were/are the mass infections of those workers? Didn't happen, hasn't happened. So why couldn't ALL businesses, especially those that did not have masses of the public moving through their work spaces daily stay open?

We assume, rightly, that UNTIL PROVEN, people are innocent, or sick. Is there a risk that someone MIGHT be infectious while not showing symptoms? Yes. How much of a risk - unquantified at this time but given the overall infection rate, probably no worse than the standard flu: <1% Even if we were to accept the 5% figure I've seen - there are qualifiers to it: enclosed spaces, groups of people, close contact. Few places in our daily lives have those qualifiers in place all the time....grocery stores?

One of the reasons we had more deaths early was not having a protocol to treat covid. It is still being debated, though I personally would demand HCQ and zinc if I were going to the hospital. We didn't, but now at least to some extent, have a good understanding of the progression of the infection and how to treat it.

Also, related to the nursing home issue, in 90% of cases (average. here in SD County the number is 97%), people are already dealing with chronic illnesses that often are fatal by themselves. The covid virus makes it worse. Some studies are putting the Vitamin D deficiency contributing factor towards 90%. So health people that get plenty of Vitamin D are substantially less likely to catch/die of the virus.

My daughter is 25, exercises outdoors every day, and is TERRIFIED of getting the virus. Her risk is virtually zero and yet, she has been panicked by the media's efforts to keep her that way. However, she was fine with the BLM protests happening just a couple of miles from her apartment. I raised her better, but she graduated a woke university just 3 years ago. She didn't come visit because there is a spike in covid cases here in the county. 400. She lives in LA county - much worse. Go figure.

Masks are a simple statement. The odds of them impacting the spread of the virus are MINIMAL. But people are right - if it helps, great. There is NO EVIDENCE that they do. Further, given the range of usefulness of homemade masks, that variability is likely much greater. If people want to wear them, I say GREAT! Do so. There is no legal support for mandating them. And where it has made it to court, the EOs are failing. There are a ton of such cases here in CA that are not even being heard because most of the courts have been ordered closed.

We have approached this the wrong way: we are treating healthy people as dangerous, we are undertreating and underprotecting the most at risk, and we are failing those that are sick. We are destroying millions of lives financially ON THE CHANCE, it might save some unknown number of lives.

I refuse to obey an order I KNOW is unConstitutional (in virtually all states, Executive Orders that affect the public MUST be verified - bills introduced and voted upon - to extend those orders beyond 30 days. We are well past those points.

I wear a mask while grocery shopping - the stores will not let me in otherwise. I wear a mask on public transportation - they won't let me on otherwise. I do not wear it anywhere else. I maintain 6' when I am around people unless I am just walking past them - like my walks along the waterline at the beach.

Our form of government is based on the rule of law - not the rule of a chief executive. The health emergency is OVER - it was by the first week of April. I will not give support, however tacit, to out of control government officials that are destroying the foundations (legal and economic) of this country for a minuscule potential benefit.

It is like flying the Confederate Flag - people lose their minds over the minuscule appearance of it because of what it represents. I find the wearing of masks in public, at the beach, in cars with just a driver, to be equally ridiculous.

Free will. The liberty to pursue happiness. The absence of governmental force FOR MY OWN GOOD,.

I get your position as a positive force in your community. I find it lacking in virtue or value because "you" are being ORDERED to do it. (Not personally you - the greater community demanding that "I" wear the mask). It is like someone saying they are helping their community and caring for their community because they are not KILLING their neighbor. !!

The response is way out of proportion to the risks. So, my arguments are legal - the EOs are unConstitutional at this point; and scientific - the risks, based on current data, show the risk to be no worse than the annual flu AT WORSE. And sociologically - the promoted cure/prevention is doing much more damage than what is being saved. And yea, some deaths are acceptable - that is the nature of SOCIETY.

@tracycoyle Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me. As always, you're well-spoken and informed. You have a lot going on in this reply, so I won't be replying point by point. I'm going to try to hone in on what I think is the core of your comments. (If I'm wrong or I skip something, please bring it back up and I'll respond.)

Let me ask a question to see if I understand:

Do you feel that an order to wear masks would be constitutional if medical data backed up the theory that wearing masks prevents the spread of the illness? Or would the order still be unconstitutional?

@RavenMStark Still unConstitutional. There has to be a LAW. Executive Orders are designed to give authority to how government is to behave - it is not how we make citizens behave. And because the situation is temporary, the law is not likely to pass. Given the 'emergency' has passed - it has - it is time to return to the legal status of 'non-emergency'.

That doesn't mean that it can't still be recommended, or that people should be prevented from wearing masks. The evidence for the benefit of wearing masks can certainly be presented. But at this point in time, it is not sufficient.

@tracycoyle If it's unconstitutional either way, the medical evidence should be irrelevant. So, that simplifies the argument a bit.

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding good resources online about whether an executive mask order given by a governor or mayor is constitutional. All I have been able to find is vague statements about arguments about the 14th Amendment being made in the past and failing in court.

From here, the only research I can think to do would be to start reading state codes and looking up court cases. And it sounds like people more qualified than me have already done that.

If you know of any articles or resources for me that could further my education, please send them my way.