I saw someone on Facebook post an article about how people were resistant to seatbelt laws when they first came about.  Now, most people accept seatbelt laws and think they are good.

The reason for the article is to compare it to the resistance of some today to wear face masks in public.  I use the word “public”, but in many cases it is actually on private property (i.e., businesses).

The posting of an article on seatbelts just makes me more adamant about opposing face mask requirements, especially requirements coming from the state.

First, I am opposed to seatbelt laws.  I won’t get into the issue of children, but for adults, there is no question from a libertarian standpoint that there should be no seatbelt laws.  Unlike masks, I am an advocate of almost always wearing a seatbelt when driving, but I don’t think it should be mandated by the state.  I advocate that some drugs are very harmful too, but I don’t think governments should be dictating what grown adults put into their bodies.

Second, and worst of all, by using seatbelt laws as an analogy to wearing a mask, this means that the people who are criticizing the mask wearing are right to be concerned. If people are citing seatbelt laws as an analogy, it means we might be faced with wearing a mask for the rest of our lives.  Seatbelt laws are still with us after many decades.

One of the arguments I have used against mask wearing (and the government lockdowns) is by asking whether this should become the norm.  After all, there is always some kind of virus out there.  You could unknowingly have it and unintentionally spread it to someone else who is vulnerable due to poor health, and this person could conceivably die from it.  At the very least, there is always some kind of flu bug in the wintertime that is prevalent, so do we always need to wear a mask in public during the winter months?

I have asked these questions to show the absurdity of all of this, expecting people to at least admit that we can’t live like this forever.  But now there are people who are basically saying this is the new normal.  I am starting to think that there will be people who fully expect everyone else to wear a mask forever when they are out in public; otherwise they are putting others in danger.  This is the point we have come to in just a few months.

Liberty Works

The U.S. was already divided politically before the coronavirus.  I think it may be divided even more now.  I think many people view it as Trump supporters not wanting to wear masks, while the anti-Trumpers want to be responsible and respectful to others and wear masks.  That is the anti-Trump perspective anyway.  Many pro-Trumpers would say that the left is trying to shove mask wearing down our throats.  If this were true, I would fall in line with the pro-Trumpers on this.  But it isn’t as clean as this.

As I’ve pointed out before, there is a mix of ideologies.  Sure, the pro liberty people are obviously going to oppose mandates to wearing a mask.  It is hard to call Trump pro liberty, but I guess everything is relative.

Still, I see many people who would not be natural Trump supporters who are ignoring the government and the establishment media in lecturing people about social distancing. There are many young people who want to be able to live their lives, and who can blame them?  When you see people partying on spring break, I don’t think a majority of these people would call themselves Trump supporters.

Anyway, we have a massive divide now between those who are ultra paranoid about the virus and those who are not.  But most of the people who are really paranoid are not content in just staying isolated. They want everyone else to be forced to be isolated.

(By the way, if you were really concerned about the virus, wouldn’t you want young and healthy people willing to take the risk to go out and get the virus and build herd immunity?)

I know of a few people who are really paranoid about the virus who adamantly oppose government lockdowns.  So maybe the divide isn’t the ultra paranoid vs. the non-paranoid.  The bigger divide is between the people who favor government lockdowns vs. those who oppose government lockdowns.

The people who are not really paranoid about the virus are not trying to impose their ways on others in most cases.  I don’t know of anyone who says that people concerned about the virus should be forced to leave their homes to eat at a restaurant or do anything else.

The wearing of masks gets a little more nuanced, so that’s why I think the pro lockdown people have grabbed a hold of this issue.  They will say that anyone not wearing a mask is violating everyone else’s rights because they could be spreading the virus.

From a libertarian standpoint, the solution as always is voluntarism and property rights.  I personally don’t want to wear a face mask, and I think there are valid arguments that they are even detrimental to people’s health.  They are certainly detrimental to people’s mental health when you feel like you are in a hospital everywhere you go now.

A business is private property.  Just because it is open to the public to shop there, it doesn’t make the ownership any less so. It should be up to each business whether they want to require masks, require not wearing masks, or leave it up to each individual entering the property.

I can accept this. In fact, I think it is the only solution here that is a peaceful one.  If a store requires a face mask, I can make my own decision on whether to wear one or just not shop at that place.  This is the case now with some businesses, but there is an issue that some businesses feel compelled based on government guidelines or in anticipation of government edicts.

The problem is that people long ago gave up freedom of association.  Businesses are prohibited by law to discriminate for certain reasons.  Businesses are prohibited in doing many things.  They can’t hire workers at certain wages.  They are also required to get a business license.

Yet, this voluntarism is the obvious solution.  I shouldn’t have to convince everyone on Facebook and everywhere else to view it my way in order to keep the state out of it.  The state shouldn’t be in it in the first place.  If you want to argue in favor of wearing masks, then let business owners know your preference.  If a business doesn’t require masks, then people can choose not to shop there, or they can take advantage of this great technology of picking up orders or getting them delivered.

Once again, as with so many issues, it comes down to coercion.  I think the hype about the coronavirus has been way overblown. The state, particularly the U.S. federal government, has played no small role in spreading hysteria.  But even if a majority of people were paranoid as now but without any state interference, we would be so much better off.  People would be able to freely associate as they desire.  If a restaurant wants to stay open at full capacity, that would be its choice.  It would also be the choice of individual consumers on whether to go there.

So if you think that the virus is really horrible and believe everything that the establishment says, that is fine, but it doesn’t mean you have to use state violence to impose your beliefs on others.  This is really the dividing line of our society now.

Do you want to use state violence to implement your political or social goals?