Two Sides to the Question of Masks
The question of masks is still is a matter of intense debate, with the focus being less on the actual efficacy of masks at this point and more the propriety of government mandates surrounding them. Tensions seem to run pretty high, with no shortage of ridicule on either side. As such, I wanted to present two different but connected sides and hopefully foster some understanding between people on both sides willing to give each other a fair shake.
A General Concession
Immediately, we should recognize that, all things considered, it’s a good thing to wear a mask. I don’t claim expertise on the matter, but wearing a mask, while a small thing, can help a great deal as far as protecting others in particular, which matters when being an asymptomatic carrier is possible. I wear a mask anywhere that I’m asked to do so, including my workplace. I don’t mind to, and generally, I think that some people get overly activated about wearing a mask. As a rule, I especially think that Christians should at least strongly consider doing so as a matter of loving our neighbors and acting responsibly.
What About the State?
Even if we recognize that masks are a good thing, naturally the question of state responses comes up. My stance is likely unsurprising, but i want to plainly state it. I don’t believe that it’s any government’s role, whether it be local, state or federal, to require masks or to levy penalties against people for choosing not to do so. The reason for this is simple: anything the state requires you to do is something that, eventually, it will use force against you for not doing. My test for this sort of thing is similarly simple: ask yourself the following, “Is this issue so important to me that I would be willing to resort to violence or force over it?” If you find yourself unwilling to use force to get something done, then one has to ask why a law or other ordinance should be passed because, again, the government’s power to enforce rules lies ultimately in the fact of its monopoly on violence. As such, we should be extremely cautious about laws and the like regarding wearing masks, even if we would wear a mask if it weren’t required of us. The general populace doesn’t need governing bodies to inform its sense of self-preservation and, of course, responsibility for one’s self is a major priority, even before we consider the implications of the state using force to get people to wear masks.
What About Private Companies and Persons?
Private companies and persons are a different matter entirely. I happily honor requests to wear a mask from any business I go to, be it a store, restaurant, or even a barbershop. If I went to a friend’s house and they asked me to wear a mask, I’d do so without thinking twice about it. As i referenced earlier, my own workplace requires masks and I wear one, which is made easier by the fact that one is provided for me. It might be puzzling that I’m adamantly against the state requiring masks and also entirely in favor of companies and the like requiring them if they so choose. However, there’s a very simple reason for this. I believe that your property is just that: your property. You can, within reason, set any rules that you like on your own property and, if for nothing else but courtesy, I should respect those rules. Even at a very basic level, Christians can find here a simple application of the Golden Rule: because we expect people to treat our homes and property with respect, we ought to do the same for others.
A Bad Analogy
In keeping with the prevalence of ridicule, a comparison is sometimes floated that’s intended to take the notion of personal responsibility to an extreme. The image of a restaurant where personal responsibility is the top priority is put forward, with examples of health and safety protocols being flouted because, after all, we want to respect the autonomy, intelligence, and responsibility of the workers and the customer. A few applications can be made, with varying degrees of validity, especially regarding how our choices impact others and I think those are worth considering. There is, however, one glaring flaw with the analogy: you never have to set foot in the restaurant, and you certainly don’t have to stay long enough to get food poisoning. No restaurant, no matter how large or successful, can require people to eat there and they certainly can’t send armed personnel out to force you to dine. Such a restaurant wouldn’t last, even if you set aside health inspectors shutting the place down. A restaurant most famous for its employees’ abject refusal to practice hygiene would be out of business within a month, and rightfully so. The state, on the other hand, has no such limitations. Because of the monopoly on violence, the state can require attendance, participation, and payment for anything its animating members wish. This is why, fundamentally, the analogy is bad: intentionally or otherwise, it, misses a fundamental difference between the state and private entities.
Some Closing Recommendations
In closing, I want to offer a few basic suggestions for navigating this discussion that can also apply elsewhere.
Be gracious and assume the best of one another. Not everyone that wants you to wear a mask is an authoritarian who has forgotten the proper role of the state, as difficult as that is to believe sometimes for people like me. Likewise, not everyone who is skeptical of masks is an irredeemably selfish person who craves the death of every grandparent on the face of the earth.
Speak clearly, be willing/able to define your terms and request the same of others. Speaking from experience, so many arguments can be solved by asking, “Can you explain what you mean by that?” It’s frustrating to argue when one side or the other is missing key information.
Leave ridicule behind. Never mind that it’s rarely necessary, you’re probably not very good at it anyway, and I don’t say that to ridicule you, dear reader. Often, when we employ ridicule, we’re not being as clever as we think and we’re almost certainly not as funny.
Above all, keep your motives in check. If we’re not careful, and I use we intentionally here, we can focus more on winning the argument rather than winning the person. As Chris Voss might say it, we can focus so much on getting to “you’re right,” that we fail to get to, “that’s right,” meaning that we’ve won the argument rather than actually changing a person’s mind.
The pandemic has been a confusing and trying time. I’ve seen people from all over the spectrum of opinion interact with each other. Sometimes this has been done well and been, if nothing else, interesting to watch unfold. Other times have been interesting to watch for the same reason a train wreck is captivating. My hope, dear reader, is that this essay willy help you approach this specific aspect of pandemic discussions in a more even-handed way. Wherever you fall on the issue, stay safe and God bless you.