Here's a message to my fellow libertarians and other conservatives: Never let your opposition define your platform or culture. Instead define your own platform based on first principles. Every decision the opposition makes is statistically unlikely to be wrong, so defining your position as the opposite of another forces your platform into stupid positions.
Rewind 2 years and we would have been absolutely ecstatic to imagine a society where not only is it perfectly commonplace and unremarkable to wear anonymity-protecting face coverings in public, but that such behavior would be aggressively protected for years to come in the name of public health.
Yes, mandatory face coverings may be seen as an erosion of personal freedom. However the existence of "decency" laws (that is, you can't be naked in public) makes such a mandate one of degree, not a fundamentally new restriction. But we do need to be vigilant against further erosion so we don't end up with burkhas.
How does the libertarian "platform" reconcile community transmission with the non-aggression principle (NAP)? Based on your community's infection prevalence, the R value of coronavirus, and the likelihood of an infection leading to death, there is a calculable statistical rate that a person is implicitly being aggressive to another just by their presence. Does that math justify a "forcible defense"? What if someone coughs in your face? Is that an act of aggression? Note that a mandatory mask law is a directive by the state to its employees to enact a such a "forcible defense" (as all laws are ultimately upheld by force). Are mandatory mask laws therefore justified by the NAP?
