Coronavirus

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp Is Suing Atlanta's Mayor Over the City's Mask Mandate. Good.

Mask mandates are dangerous and unjust, regardless of which level of government imposes them.

|

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has filed a lawsuit against Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and members of Atlanta's City Council. The suit aims to prevent the city from enforcing mask requirements or rolling back the state's reopening phases.

The lawsuit comes just a day after the Republican governor issued an executive order suspending local governments' face covering requirements, a policy some 15 localities had adopted. The governor's own COVID-19 executive orders have recommended, but do not require, masks to be worn.

"This lawsuit is on behalf of the Atlanta business owners and their hardworking employees who are struggling to survive during these difficult times," tweeted Kemp. "These men and women are doing their very best to put food on the table for their families while local elected officials shutter businesses and undermine economic growth."

"3,104 Georgians have died and I and my family are amongst the [106,000] who have tested positive for COVID-19," Bottoms shot back. (The Democratic mayor announced last week that she had tested positive for the coronavirus.) "A better use of tax payer money would be to expand testing and contact tracing."

In addition to targeting the mask mandate, Kemp's lawsuit accuses Bottoms of telling the Atlanta Police Department not to enforce the state's ban on gatherings of more than 50 people.

The governor's attempts to curtail a locality's authority sparked a wave of national criticism from liberals—as well as from Congress' only Libertarian congressman, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan.

Kemp's emergency COVID-19 orders include a prohibition on local governments issuing rules that are inconsistent with the ones coming from state authorities. His latest July 15 executive order also explicitly suspends any face covering mandates "to the extent they are more restrictive" than the governor's order.

Bottoms' most recent mask mandate—Atlanta law sunsets emergency orders every 72 hours, requiring them to be reissued—acknowledges this suspension. But the order argues that only a prohibition on wearing masks should be considered "more restrictive." The city's requirement to wear a mask, Bottoms' order asserts, isn't in fact a restriction on mask-wearing and therefore doesn't conflict with the governor's order.

This logic is a little wacky. A requirement to wear a mask in public entails a prohibition on not wearing a mask. That prohibition is clearly more restrictive than Kemp's voluntary guidance. As a matter of law, Kemp has the better argument.

That said, Kemp is clearly playing politics as well. The fact that he is suing to stop Atlanta's mandate, but not those of the other 14 Georgia cities with similar requirements, suggests this lawsuit is more about a political rivalry between the state's Republican governor and the Democratic mayor of its largest city than anything else.

At the same time, Bottoms appears happy to exacerbate this conflict by renewing her city's mask mandate in the face of an explicit state prohibition of these policies, and by using some really tortured reasoning to justify her action.

Other mayors are muddying things further by trying to make the issue about the wisdom of wearing a mask, not whether local governments have the power to require them. See, for instance, this tweet from Savannah Mayor Van Johnson:

Of course, masks would still be available. The question is whether people will be forced to wear them.

What is a libertarian to make of all this?

There is a conceivable libertarian argument for masking requirements, on the grounds that they do more to prevent the wearer from infecting other people than from being infected themselves. Under this view, an unmasked person could be considered a walking nuisance whose behavior is the legitimate subject of regulation. But whether or not you accept this argument, these mask mandates apply to people regardless of whether they are infected and, thus, regardless of whether they pose a risk to others.

Other libertarians, such as Amash, might think that state governments should leave it to localities to come up with their own response to COVID-19. The severity of the pandemic can vary wildly within states, meaning a policy that's necessary for one city is inappropriate in another. Kemp's efforts to combat the pandemic, while being much less restrictive than other governors', have been among the most centralized.

Still, there's nothing inherently unlibertarian about state governments preempting unjust or unwise local laws. Few libertarians object to state prohibitions on local income taxes or rent control ordinances, for instance.

People should also be mindful of the fact that mask mandates come with serious punishments attached. Savannah's mask requirement comes with a $500 fine (although Johnson did tell the Associated Press that violators would be offered a free face covering first). Atlanta's laws make it a misdemeanor to violate the mayor's emergency orders, meaning someone could potentially be hit with a $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail for not wearing a mask in public.

We, as a country, just witnessed two months of protests predicated on the idea that police are often unnecessarily punitive and violent when enforcing the law. That would include the Atlanta Police Department, whose officers have recently been involved in a number of high-profile, highly controversial uses of force. This very same police department that would be expected to enforce the city's masking requirement.

Meanwhile, private parties—including such major retailers as Walmart, Target, Starbucks, and CVS—are requiring customers to wear masks. This will help keep shoppers safe without the threat of fines and jail time.

Kemp's lawsuit is obviously politically motivated. But the governor seems to have both liberty and the law on his side.

NEXT: Andrew Cuomo's Coronavirus Response Has Been a Failure

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Mask mandates are dangerous and unjust, regardless of which level of government imposes them.

    This really is the difference between classical liberals and ideological anarcho libertarians

    Classical liberals believed that governance arises from the consent of the governed. There are limits on that to protect individual freedom – but for someone else to undermine that in order to impose [name any idea] is to destroy self-governance.

    Are libertarians the descendants of classical liberalism – or simply yet another 20th century ideology that can’t allow constraints on itself because humans don’t really matter much?

    1. Thank you. People seem to think that libertarianism = I get to do whatever I want.

      1. Yes, that’s the conservatives’ definition of libertarianism.

        1. Like Kemp or Amash, bitch? They are saying two different things.

          1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…

            Home Profit System

        2. “Yes, that’s the conservatives’ definition of libertarianism.”
          And lefties, such as the lefty DOL and the cowardly piece of lefty shit JFree.

          1. I Start Business Online with USA Countries Please Click this link………………USA Job Here.

      2. Bitch, it is. Look at the author. He is praising Kemp for “liberty and law” even as Libertarian Amash says the opposite.

        You fuckers are hypocritical Republicans, that’s all.

        1. Fuck off Pod.

          1. Probably pod; infantile babbling.

    2. How is this in conflict? You acknowledge there are limits to government power in order to preserve individual freedom.

      If I don’t want to wear a mask, and the business I’m visiting doesn’t care if a wear a mask, how is it government’s role to force us into doing it? None of the governed in that scenario consented to the decree, and all the governed who did aren’t involved anyways so why should their input matter?

      People who are worried about getting sick can simply not visit the places that don’t require masks. Being 6 feet away makes you invincible, so this shouldn’t be a problem.

      1. He doesn’t explain in which instances individual freedom can override self-governance without . . . destroying self-governance.
        Also, clearly, if you do not support mask mandates, you think humans don’t matter much.

        1. I’m against mask mandates because I think that lives matter. The evidence in favor of masks is specious at best.

          You just want to polish your jackboots.

          1. My last sentence was sarc.

          2. And right on cue…

            There’s plenty of reasons to be against a mask mandate, but “jack booted tyranny” is a pretty lame one. Are public nudity laws “jack booted tyranny”? Because a mandate to wear a mask is on that same level of coercion as a mandate to wear clothes in public.

            I’m against mask mandates because (a) this virus is not as bad as many people think it is and (b) people can by and large can be persuaded to wear a mask when appropriate without a mandate based on their own unique circumstances. But if there was a mask mandate imposed upon me, I would not cry about “tyranny” because that just looks foolish.

            1. fines are higher if I stroll downtown w/o pants.

            2. Face diapers are completely ineffective against viruses, trap and generate bacteria, interfere with the body’s normal immune system (mucus membranes, antibodies, and nose hair), and are an infantile response to *former* uncertainty. The facts on KungFlu’s mortality (.05% vs. 1.8% for seasonal flu, according to the CDC) are now so fucking obvious that diapering can’t be explained by anything other than willful ignorance, neuroticism, and/or power-lust. Crying “tyranny” over being forced into an irrational, arbitrary behavior by the government, whatever the level, is the opposite of foolish. And maybe you’re not familiar with history, but people have been voluntarily wearing clothes for thousands of years without any help from their governments. No coercion or bullshit rationalizations about “safety” required.

              1. Mask also inhibit communication, both verbal and especially non-verbal.
                Something as simple as smiling at someone to acknowledge them is blocked.
                That’s a big fucking part of human socialization

                1. >>That’s a big fucking part of human socialization

                  this. I’d even smile @jfree I smile at everybody

                  1. It’s weird.
                    I like smiling at people rather than speaking.
                    I still do it because it’s natural, but now I just look like a dick

                2. Not to mention that hearing impaired individuals often rely on lip reading or partial lip reading to be able to understand people.

                3. I hate interacting with people with masks on.

                  I think people underestimate how important non-verbal communication and a certain amount of casual physical contact can be. People getting used to this as some kind of “new normal” will be terrible psychologically for people and will not do good things for our society and culture.

              2. thank you. good ideas never require force to implement.

            1. “Here is a list of 70 papers that prove the effectiveness of masks.”

              I don’t think that word (prove) means what you think it means.

            2. Scientific truth is not a matter of agreement…

              1. And you have knowledge of all scientific truth that might apply? And are nowhere thrown off by (non-)scientific untruths that might seem to apply? Nor in any way hampered by lacunae (areas in which scientific truths are unknown, nor known to be unknown)?

                You must be God herself!

            3. “Here is a list of 70 articles that assert the effectiveness of masks.”

              Fixed it for you.

            4. “The Science” is settled!

            5. Some people are beyond persuasion. Fine. They will never ever ever be persuaded by any study or science on masks, because their opposition to masks isn’t based on a skepticism in the science, it is based on their desire to make an act of simple courtesy into some culture war statement.

              And I think others are now realizing this as well, they realize that there are a lot of asshats out there who would rather make a political statement instead of being a decent human being towards strangers, and so they will be compelled to avoid the anti-maskers and/or be extra cautious if it can’t be avoided.

              This is exactly like those douchebags who will write 1,000-word essays on blog posts about how they won’t open doors for ladies because they don’t want to “submit to the patriarchy” or whatnot, when it would have taken them way less time to just open the damn door for strangers as a decent human being than it took to write that blog post that did nothing to help anyone except make the author look smug.

              1. “Some people are beyond persuasion.”

                So thugs like you propose to pull the guns, right?

                1. Sevo, please read.


                  chemjeff radical individualist
                  July.17.2020 at 8:52 pm
                  No, there are definite “anti-maskers” here, people who refuse to wear a mask even if it is merely recommended or encouraged. See Nardz above, and a few others.

                  I totally understand being opposed to a mask mandate. I’m not in favor of a mask mandate either.

            6. “Enjoy”

              Did VOX cherry-pick those for you?
              What you really need to post is:
              Here’s a list of 70 links which agree with me.

              1. Once again, I am sorry reality doesn’t agree with you. You could choose to change your beliefs, or you can continue to throw temper tantrums at reality and curse a universe that doesn’t respect the chaotic firing of neurons in your head that comprises your deluded thoughts.

                1. “Once again, I am sorry reality doesn’t agree with you”

                  Once again, I’m tired of your cherry-picking bullshit to support your arguments.
                  Fuck off, slaver.

            7. No one is disputing that masks are effective at blocking transmission by coughing/sneezing. When sick people cough or sneeze they eject small droplets of saliva and mucus which carry virus particles within them. Masks are obviously effective at catching these. HOWEVER: PEOPLE WHO AREN’T VISIBLY SICK DON’T EJECT ANYTHING. You cannot get sick from people who aren’t coughing or sneezing (unless you are french kissing them or sharing spoons or something). Making everyone in the goddamn world wear a mask 24/7 is a wild overreaction to a virus that has so far managed to infect around 1% of the country (total cumulative, currently infecting about 1/3rd of that) and is killing less than 1% of those infected.

              1. So the virus discriminates on which droplets it decides to reside in? Only the sick droplets you say? I look forward to seeing the scientific evidence of this claim.

            8. How many of these papers claims can be replicated?

              Because an AWFUL lot of “peer reviewed” papers are utterly and thoroughly unable to be replicated. Which kinda makes them useless.

            9. Excellent post!

              It is unfortunate that libertarians have gotten lost arguing about something like this.

              If most who think of themselves — often quite correctly — as libertarians — cared more about how their tax money was wasted on imperialist wars and bailouts of banks and corporations (i. e. huge sums of money — hundreds of billions, if not trillions) and the support of repressive governments . . . then all this argument about how unfair it is to force people to weak masks (!!) would be seen for what it is — a diversion and a digression from the real problems that are always constantly draining the treasury and taxpayer.

            10. On the other hand, the CDC says they work, so it’s quite rational to assume the opposite.

              They actually gave both the pro- and anti-mask answers depending on when you are talking about, so it is reasonable to assume that the first one was an inadvertent statement of truth, while the second is the standard government lie. If a government tells you A, then later emphatically B, you can assume that A was closer to the truth than B.

              I’ve read abstracts from a bunch of the “studies.” One of them had the “researchers” tape a surgical mask to the top of a hamster cage and give it a lil’ spritz with an atomizer full of water with the COVID virus infused. They spritzed the hamsters with the mask over the cage and they spritzed hamsters with no mask.

              The result was the ones without the mask got sick, and the ones with the mask did not.

              So if our faces were hamster cages, our lungs were hamsters, and the threat we faced was a momentary spritz from a glorified squirt gun, with the droplets falling by force of gravity, then yes, we could say masks work. Otherwise, it’s nonsense.

              Real life exposure is nothing like that. Airflow through the hamster mask at the point the droplets touch the mask is more or less zero, which is far from the case with a mask on a human instead of a cage, where breathing creates localized areas of high airflow and pressure differential. This happens repeatedly, some 40-50 times a minute, forever, not just once. It is known that the filtering efficiency of masks (or any other filtering medium) is dependent on the rate of airflow, with diminishing efficiency as airflow increases. A zero airflow situation like the hamster cage one isn’t even something that usually gets tested, since there is no point to filtering anything if there is no flow. You could use Saran Wrap and get the same result (just don’t extrapolate THAT result to the idea of wrapping it around your face).

              Another study used test media whose particles were the same size as the droplets emitted by people talking are supposed to be, and it stopped a good bunch of them, so they conclude masks work, since the premise was that droplets are how COVID is spread.

              Now they’re realizing that, like the flu virus, SARS-CoV-2 actually spreads quite well by aerosol, and a permeable barrier like a mask that catches droplets and holds them in an airstream is a pretty effective way to evaporate the droplets and launch the virions through the mask (which offers zero resistance to particles that are virus-sized) into the air with each breath.

              These aerosols float around on the slightest air current in the room, which any occupied (and air conditioned) room certainly will have, and they can remain viable for a couple of hours, or be carried to another room in the building by the HVAC. Wearing a mask is no defense whatsoever against aerosols, but it will convert any virus particles embedded in droplets YOU may be exhaling into /more/ aerosols. Any study that does not take into account aerosol conversion is of limited use, if any.

              Mask studies do not take into account the way regular people wear masks, or the psychology of the whole thing. When you harp on people about masks every day, and masks are the only bit that is actively required, they get the idea that masks are the “main” thing, and they go ahead and ignore the other stuff “since they’ve been so good with the mask.” They feel safer, so they relax and do the other stuff they’re not supposed to do, like skipping hand washing, shaking hands, going into crowded areas, stuff like that.

              The hand washing thing is especially bad when you are face-diapered. Grubby hands pick up any number of things from the environment, and then you touch the mask with them, you deposit that stuff inches or less away from the point of the mask where the air flows through when you inhale. People do this constantly…
              pull it down so it only covers the mouth so you can get some fresh air (who ever heard of THAT being a good thing?), pull it back up when people are around, pull it down to the neck when you are outside, pull it back up to go back inside, move it around because it shifts when you talk, scratch the itches or tickles it triggers… constant touching, and no one uses hand sanitizer first. You see this all the time… people are fiddling with the things constantly. Pick any random person and watch them in public and see how long it takes. It’s seldom very long. Just go to any random tabloid site and look at paparazzi pictures of some celebrity wearing a mask and see how many you have to look at before you get one with them touching the mask.

              Then there’s the warm, moist, protein-filled bacteria garden you’re growing on the inside of the mask. Opportunistic bacteria live in and on us already, so if you give them a petri dish to play in, they’re gonna play. You don’t want that petri dish smashed against your nose, though, for obvious reasons. Many bacterial diseases of the respiratory tract have COVID-like symptoms (I used to get them a lot as a kid). I wonder how many “COVID” cases whose rise is being used to push mask mandates are actually bacterial diseases that are the result of mask wearing.

              Doctors and nurses are more aware of the ability of bacteria to colonize surfaces like the inside of a mask, and preventing such things is part of their training on how to use masks correctly (disposing of them after a while, into a biohazardous waste receptacle, being one of them).

              Surgical masks were not designed or intended for laypeople to wear all day, and cloth masks are even bigger risks, as they don’t get thrown away (and people that have to pay for their own disposable masks may not dispose them very much either).

              People hear that COVID dies after a few hours, so they conclude that by the next time they need their cloth mask, it will be “safe,” but they’re not thinking of the bacteria or the junk in the mask that bacteria like.

              1. Excellent post sir.

            11. I can’t read all of those, but the ones I randomly took a look at don’t appear to prove anything. They suggest a lot and make a lot of common sense sort of arguments.

              The mask mandate vs. no mask mandate thing does make an interesting experiment, but we are far from the point when we can know the results. There are other reasons why rates might be lower in more masked places, including greater immunity already in the community.

              And of course, even assuming masks do what they are purported to do, there is the question of why do we think that reducing the rate of transmission as much as possible is the best way to proceed? Seems to me that through voluntary measures, we can keep things controlled enough that hospitals don’t descend into chaos, but still get this over with before winter comes and the next flu season.

        2. the powers that think they be make much of “following the science”. MY question as yet completely unanswered, is this: WHO DEFINES THE SCIENCE? The gummit? the guys making/selling the masks? the insurance companies? Fauci or Birx? And on WHAT BASIS is the “science” defined?

          I’ve read lab studies on the ficacy of various types/rands/materials/classes of masks in common use these days, specificaly covering those in use against thie faux virus nonsense.

          FACT: the cloth masks covering probaably 98% of the mugs out there TRANSMIT nearly ALL (97%) pathogens. Would YOU take a ten shot revolver, leave NINE live rounds in the cylinder, then spin the cylnder eyes closed, clasp it shut, put the muzzle to your head and play Russian Roulett with it? Of COURSE not. I’d not even play it with one live round in the cylinder. Bug that’s what you do when you wear one of those stupid worthless cloth mug nappies. Take the vasty more effective N 95 masks… They “ONLY” transmit about 44% of pathogens. A lot better…. take that ten shot revolver and only leave three live rounds in the cylinder.

          WHY should government make ANY such mandate anyway? Provide information, (accurate scientifically sound infomation, which is anathema to most gummit agencies) then let ME govern myself basedon MY personal knowledge of my own situation. If I know I’ve not been around anyone possibly contaminated for two weeks, I should be allowed to go anywhere no restrictioins. They seem to think we’re all a bunch of toddlers with ful loads in our nappies, looking for some place to “share the wealth”. Of course since da gummit skewlz have been training their charges to BE that sort of derelict, why should anyone be surprised when a large portion of their “product” is dieseased in the brain and orally corrupt.

          And NOWHERE have I EVER seen ANY government agency provide sound advice on what simple easily available and affordable dietary supplements can boost nearly everyones’ immune system to the point where something as benigh as this ChinaVirus cannot get a foothold and infect the subject individual.

          1. So you think no science is legit. Do you think that permits you to replace it with whatever random beliefs you dream up?

            1. Tell me more about how men can become women if they want to really, really badly?

            2. the very definition of science is to question, explore, and test. it is not to come up with a set of immutable, never-to-be-challenged rules used by the powers that be for their own agendas

          2. You are obviously very informed on the subject, and I mean that literally (there’s so much sarcasm here that it’s hard to tell sometimes). It was the bit about the N95 only stopping a bit more than half of particles in the COVID size range. Most people I run into seem to think that N95s are “thou shalt not pass!” when it comes to virus-sized particles, but they’re not. Surgical masks (such that they are called… real surgical masks do not use ear loops) and cloth masks have virus-blocking efficiency that is not substantially different from zero.

            That’s actual science, though. We keep hearing all of these pols talking about “science,” but they sound suspiciously like the high priests in a theocracy, declaring that their god has spoken (only to them, of course), and any question of the decrees issued based on that infallible word is heresy. They keep appealing to “science” as if it is some absolute authority, rather like a god, not an actual process where doubt and questioning is always part of it.

      2. You acknowledge there are limits to government power in order to preserve individual freedom.

        It is up to the individual to challenge that govt overreach. It is not up to the executive of a higher level of govt to impose limits. And in particular via a 41pp executive order (7/15) that in fact is massively ordering individuals to do this that or the other and is simply using one section of that ExecOrder to eliminate the ability of any other level of governance to do anything different.

        1. Oh I understand that the Governor in this case is no defender of individual liberty, he’s just upset that the Mayor doesn’t respect his authoritah.

          That doesn’t change my scenario though. It doesn’t matter which level of government is issuing the mask decree in my scenario, none of them have any right to tell two groups that are perfectly OK interacting without masks that they have to wear them.

          1. For the record, I’m going to side with whatever level of government defends individual liberty. I like the concepts of federalism, but if my State government intends to fuck me and the Feds stop it from happening I’m not going to whine about federal overreach.

            My State has a magazine capacity limit, but my Sheriff refuses to enforce it. That means I support the Sheriff on the subject. If the roles were reversed and my County had the stupid law but the State cops prevented it from being enforced, I’d side with the State over my County.

            That might be inconsistent, but I care far more about individual liberty than I do about the technicalities of the ways in which our various levels of government interact with each other.

            1. This.

            2. For the record, I’m going to side with whatever level of government defends individual liberty.

              Not really. From what I understand of your position, you will side with any level of government that defends an IDEA of individual liberty that you personally can buy into. But you are absolutely willing to destroy the actual liberty of everyone to discuss with their neighbors how they will interact with each other.

              Worse – while that second liberty is NOT imposing any behavior or idea on anyone outside that group, that first liberty IS imposing itself on the behavior of everyone. In the form of – my idea of liberty is the only idea of liberty that matters and FYTW.

              1. “From what I understand of your position, you will side with any level of government that defends an IDEA of individual liberty that you personally can buy into. But you are absolutely willing to destroy the actual liberty of everyone to discuss with their neighbors how they will interact with each other.”

                Your response doesn’t follow from FMDH’s post. To extend his example about magazine capacity restrictions, nothing in what he wrote indicates that he would prevent others from limiting themselves to restricted capacity magazines if that is their choice, regardless of which jurisdiction does not impose such restrictions.

              2. “…From what I understand of your position, you will side with any level of government that defends an IDEA of individual liberty that you personally can buy into…”

                Did you hope that sleazy bit of sophistry would convince anyone, you cowardly piece of lefty shit?
                Regarding the mandate to wear masks, please explain, in English, the difference between the IDEA and the fact of individual liberty.

            3. the interesting and salient point in all FOUR of your above scenaria is this:

              the ones issuing the ORDERS (making law) are NOT the ones tasked with that function.
              Nor governors nor mayors have the authoritey to MAKE LAW. And mandating certain behaviour is making law, no other way to slice it up.

              Now, the GOVERNOR is right in that it is HIS bailiwick to enforce existing law,. And when the SATATE legislature have decided masks are not mandatory, as it seems has happened here, the GOVERNOR has the responsibilituy to make THAT the reality everywhere in the state he governs. In this case, the mssie is not masks or no masks, it is the simple fact that the local cities do NOT have the authority to override state mandates duly enacted by the legislature.
              In the case of yuor mag cap mandates, NO ONE has the authrotiy to infringe upon your right to keep and bear what YOU want to keep and bear.. That is YOUR job to figure out. SO whether it is at the state or county or city level, NO ONE has the authority ot trump the US Constituton, whcih clealry states “shall not be infringed” is the supreme law of the land. In any such case, YOU the citizen whose right to arms is protected, are in the right to ignore, hide from, refuse to comply with ANY such restriction no matter at what “level” it is imposed.

              Masks fall under the right to be secure in my person, home, papers, effects…… government at NO level can come in and demand I act in any specific way in these areas. My security is MY security.

              Now, when we get to the science of the matter, NO ONE has that properly in view… not only are the stupid mug nappies INEFFECTIVE (they transmit 97% of pathogens, tha tmeans they FILTER only THREE perent.. thus do NOT afford any level of protection whatever) and further they can and do CAUSE HARM by reducing oxygen levels in MY blood, and increasing CO2 levels, AND restricting air flow into my body at times I might need it most. NO benefit and SPECIFIC HARMS. And gummit want to deprive me of MY authority over my own body?
              Same eedjits want to regulate what I do/do not put into that same body.

              BUTT OUTT all of them.

        2. If the governor were simply saying – under particular law A which was created to protect rights XYZ of all citizens of Georgia, a mask mandate by any lower level of government is illegal. In that case, you have the rule of law – and the governor is simply the executor of that law.

          In the current case, you have the rule of an individual. aka exactly what classical liberalism was created to eliminate.

          There are potentially broader issues here – re whether the US will continue to adhere to Dillon’s Rule (municipalities are a creation of the state legislature and therefore can be eliminated/constrained/etc by the state) or Cooley Doctrine aka ‘home rule’ (local governance is an absolute right of the individual and it cannot be eliminated by the state). Classical liberalism would be entirely on the side of Cooley doctrine. The federal government and Constitution (with state level comprising Senate) are entirely Dillon rule. But while interesting, that is not even at play here.

        3. “It is up to the individual to challenge that govt overreach. It is not up to the executive of a higher level of govt to impose limits.”

          Are you out of your fucking mind?

          So a higher level of gov. is to stand idly by while a lower level over-reaches UNLESS the individual has the resources or wherewithal to fight back? That’s idiotic, even by your standards.

          1. Apparently you don’t think the individual is the one most aware of their own rights. A higher level government with presumably the right Top Man in charge is needed.
            Odd idea of liberty that

            1. So, Ike was wrong to force desegregation?

              SCOTUS was wrong in Brown v Board of Education?

              1. Tell me specifically what right is being denied by the mask mandate in Atlanta.
                You can’t because there isn’t one.

                1. Are you seriously asking if “emergency” mandates and arbitrary rule making by government bureaucrats, disregarding the entire law making process that is in place AND constitutional, are a violation of rights? You are such a statist hack.

              2. And btw the Brown vBoard cases were all brought forward by individuals claiming an infringement that they could specifically identify.

        4. “It is up to the individual to challenge that govt overreach. It is not up to the executive of a higher level of govt to impose limits.”
          You.
          You cowardly piece of lefty shit.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.
          US Constitution.
          Stuff it up your ass with your PANIC flag so your head has some company.

      3. The relevant difference between a suicide bomber and an infected person without mask in public, is what again?

        Many of the argument spewed here are no different than a) a suicide bomber claiming that it is not their job to make sure others are not affected by their actions. And b) Those who do not want to be the victim of suicide bombers should not be out be public.

        1. We could discuss the death rates of bombs v kung flu, if you’d so appreciate it?

        2. A suicide bomber KNOWS he’s a suicide bomber. His intent is to cause death and destruction. A citizen living his life may not know he is sick. Your analogy deems him guilty of a so-called crime that he has no idea he’s committing.

          If you believe that our government can justifiably do whatever the hell it wants because we are all assumed to be diseased, well that makes you a tyrant.

        3. Acting vs. not acting.

          Not acting is not to perform the suicide bombing. Prohibiting certain actions that would harm others directly is acceptable.

          Not acting is to not wear the mask. Requiring certain actions on behalf of others (and even that’s a false premise, since they do not offer any protective benefit to anyone else) is not acceptable.

        4. So, what are you saying? People who leave the house when sick should be charged with attempted murder and terrorism?

          You can’t treat infectious disease that way. It’s a force of nature. Sometimes you get sick. That’s life.

    3. There are two broad strains of libertarianism. There are the classic liberals that follow in the line of Smith, Burke, etc. Then there are the contrarians who automatically gainsay anything the government would do, following in the line of Rothbard and Rockwell. There are some people in between, like Nock, but mostly it’s these two camps. One side is pro liberty the other side is anti government. The Venn diagram of those two sides have a huge overlap, but there is still a distinct difference.

      Or if one insists, Cosmotarians versus Paleotarians.

      1. Yeah I think you basically have it.
        And in this era of polarization, you have the “cosmotarians” becoming perhaps a little bit more accommodating of government power (i.e. “bake the cake”) and you have the “paleotarians” who not only reject coercive government mandates in toto, but *also* reject noncoercive private suggestions as being nearly as bad as coercion. (“I won’t wear a mask ever, I won’t buy into the narrative! Screw you!”) The one gets a little bit too statist friendly while the other gets a little bit too paranoid and curmudgeonly.

        I freely admit I’m in the “cosomtarian” camp but I would like to think of myself as hopefully on the rightward edge of that camp, anyway. We’ll see.

      2. Libertarians believe some government is necessary. Anarcho-capitalists believe no government is necessary, and in fact is merely a criminal protection racket. Rothbard was an an-cap, not a contrarian. That’s the difference…

      3. “There are two broad strains of libertarianism.”

        No, there aren’t.
        There are those claiming to be libertarian who will abandon any sort of principle as soon as they get frightened,
        And then there are libertarians.
        Grow up, you pathetic piece of shit; your health is your concern, regardless of how you try sophistry to mask your fright.

    4. It’s forced speech, in support of irrational panic based on bad science to give the government totalitarian authority

      1. Wearing a mask in public is “forced speech” in the same way that wearing pants in public is “forced speech”.

        1. They keep telling us that wearing masks is a statement that we care about other people. They want to force wearing of masks.

          That’s pretty conclusively a forced statement, by their own definition, is it not?

    5. “Are libertarians the descendants of classical liberalism – or simply yet another 20th century ideology that can’t allow constraints on itself because humans don’t really matter much?”

      Cowardly piece of lefty shit tries to redefine words to justify his authoritarian desires.
      Fuck off, slaver.

    6. hy my friend you can earn a lot of money by click on that link

      ………………………USA Countries 

    7. I have made 96,760 Buck just last month by working online from my home. I am a full time college student and just doing this in my free time for few hours per week by using my laptop.Everyone can check this out and start making cash online in a very easy way by just following instructions…….COPY This Website….HERE══════►►►  Read more  

  2. Should people be require to wear swimsuits on public beaches?

      1. My man

    1. It depends.

      Is it on the beach where they’re filming Spring Break Girls Gone Wild? Then no.

      Is it on the beach where they’re filming Golden Girls: The Next Generation? Then yes.

      1. What if they are filming Golden Girls Gone Wild?

        1. Then that’s a definite yes.

    2. No. You are free to wear regular pants if you so wish to. Women can wear dresses if they choose to do so.

  3. How do anti-maskers feel about people not washing their hands after going to the bathroom?

    1. Why should people be required to go to bathrooms?

      1. That’s where the sink is to wash your hands.

      2. Depends on the situation…..

    2. How do you feel about governments telling people earlier this year NOT to wear masks and then turning around and ordering everyone to wear them?

      1. I feel like that demonstrates that some people can learn and change their behavior as they get more information.

        And, as the current situation on masks clearly demonstrates, many people cannot.

        1. Yeah, right. “the science” did a 180-degree turn in just a few months’ time.

          Nah, the first impulse was correct. It’s why the CDC still does not recommend mask-wearing during cold and flu season, and why the WHO still admits on its website, while advising TO wear masks, that they are likely ineffective.

          These organizations are clutching at straws and trying to give governments something, anything, they can use to try and control a situation that is uncontrollable.

          1. ^^^ This.

            Respiratory viruses are nothing new. COVID is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, a close cousin to SARS-CoV-1 virus that spread through Hong Kong nearly 2 decades ago. It’s been the subject of a lot of research, and so has influenza. Now, suddenly, the “science” turns on a dime and reverses itself that quickly?

            Real science is slow and deliberative, and it can take time for bad science to be rooted out and eliminated. Truth is a stubborn thing, but also a patient one at times. We don’t throw out the sum total of what we know about respiratory viruses in a couple of months. That’s politics, not science. When Dr. Fauci mentioned “a false narrative,” that was politics, not science.

    3. They feel that those people were raised by coyotes but that hand-washing shouldn’t be compelled by the state. Jesus, is it really that complicated? If you’re concerned about germs, wash your own fucking hands. And don’t “whatabout” food-handling in restaurants. The obvious libertarian take on that is that it’s in a restaurant’s rational self-interest to take scrupulous care to maintain good sanitation. It’s an advertising and selling point. If you have to be told not to poison your customers, maybe you should be driving a truck.

      1. Some of us think we can do better as a community than waiting around for customers to die en masse before we decide a restaurant is a bad choice for a Friday night.

    4. “Anti masker”

      I am only an “anti masker” in the sense that I am against pro mask people. They are cry bullies who are trying to fundamentally change normal human interaction because they are too insane with fear and TDS to have any goddamn common sense about this virus

      Fuck pro-mask people, but fyi I wear a mask in public

      1. I wear a mask when I go somewhere where it’s possible that vulnerable people may need to go, like the grocery store. Not everybody can afford delivery or has a friend or family member who can shop for them.

    5. “How do anti-maskers feel about people not washing their hands after going to the bathroom?” It’s disgusting and antisocial. Of course, my mouth and nose weren’t just holding my dick (insert joke here) or wiping my ass.

    6. You tried to slip in “anti-maskers” as if that’s a common view in these forums, but it isn’t. You’d be hard-pressed to find any serious posts calling for government fines for people who choose to wear a mask.

      If you want to use a term that doesn’t misrepresent the common view here the way “anti-mask” obviously does, try “anti-mandate” instead. I mean, you wouldn’t want to misrepresent things, would you?

      1. “I mean, you wouldn’t want to misrepresent things, would you?”

        Yes he would.

      2. No, there are definite “anti-maskers” here, people who refuse to wear a mask even if it is merely recommended or encouraged. See Nardz above, and a few others.

        I totally understand being opposed to a mask mandate. I’m not in favor of a mask mandate either. But I strongly encourage everyone to wear a mask voluntarily, because it’s the proper and decent thing to do when in the company of strangers when you don’t know who is vulnerable and who is not.

        1. Sure there are people like that here, but I would say that using the term “anti-mask” in the way it appeared in Chipper’s post implies something more than mere individual choice.

          FWIW, despite a local requirement, I don’t wear a mask unless a business or other private entity requires it. The recent “emergency” ordinance here allows pretty much any kind of cloth face covering, and there’s no good research showing a cotton bandana plays a noticeable role in reducing the spread of droplets, nevermind the disputed utility of such a requirement for asymptomatic individuals. In your view, this might make me “anti-mask”, but I would describe myself as “anti-mandate”.

        2. If they are vulnerable, they need to be in a N95 and a face shield or goggles, or better yet at home. Making everyone on earth wear a cloth or surgical mask ain’t gonna help them even a little bit, but it quite possibly will get the wearer sick.

    7. “How do anti-maskers feel about people not washing their hands after going to the bathroom?”

      How do the slavers feel about stationing cops in bathrooms to shoot anyone who doesn’t wash their hands. slaver?

    8. Are there laws requiring it? I’m not aware of any.

    9. I really don’t spend much time worrying about it one way or the other. I do wash my own. Usually.

  4. Gotta disagree with Amash here. Local control, states rights, and all that are not principles unto themselves. They’re often preferable because they’re closer to home and ostensibly more accountable to the people, but if they’re prevented from violating people’s rights by a higher level of government, that’s just fine in my book.

    1. Yup

    2. Exactly. The purpose of government should be to protect our rights. So it’s absolutely the role of higher levels of government to step in when lower levels of government are infringing on our rights.

      You would think the only “Libertarian” member of Congress would understand that.

    3. Me too. Missing from the article is what about businesses that want everyone to wear masks? Which I believe libertarians would respect, given it’s their business and property.

      I’m not for mask mandates, but then I don’t want people approaching me that aren’t wearing masks.

      1. When two people came to my house last month to do some work, I told them that they don’t have to wear a mask if they don’t want to. I believe the science that says they are ineffective in stopping the virus and not the politics that says they are effective. Considering that wearing a mask impairs my breathing and makes me extremely uncomfortable, I don’t want to force that on anyone else. If I’m sick, I won’t go out with a mask “to protect others,” I’ll just stay home.

  5. Meanwhile, private parties—including such major retailers as Walmart, Target, Starbucks, and CVS—are requiring customers to wear masks. This will help keep shoppers safe without the threat of fines and jail time.

    Of course it will. Because no one is pulling guns at – Walmart, Publix, Costco, etc – because an employee (or another customer – who is most likely a Karen – but still is simply telling them what that store’s policy is) is telling them to wear a mask.

    1. The big box stores around here all have armed security guards and/or police officers hanging out at the entrances. So, yes, they ARE pulling guns.

      1. As are those who don’t want to wear masks. What could possibly go wrong?

        1. You’re hallucinating.

        2. If that’s true now, it has always been true. And all risky behavior should be forbidden.

          What do you suppose the odds are that a person with no symptoms who may or may not be carrying the virus will cause death or severe illness to a stranger they briefly interact with in public? It’s hard to say without having a good idea of how many active infections there are, but I’d guess something less than 1:1,000,000. Every time you drive a car you are subjecting people to a much greater danger of death or serious injury.

    2. “Because no one is pulling guns at – Walmart, Publix, Costco, etc – because an employee (or another customer – who is most likely a Karen – but still is simply telling them what that store’s policy is) is telling them to wear a mask.”

      And if I chose not to wear a mask, you cowardly piece of lefty shit, I can choose to shop elsewhere.

  6. There is a conceivable libertarian argument for masking requirements, on the grounds that they do more to prevent the wearer from infecting other people than from being infected themselves.

    Nothing + more = close to nothing.

    1. Only a Reason “libertarian,” the same kind of “libertarian” that we keep hearing of in conjunction with Silicon Valley, would make that argument. If I can be compelled to take an action that I do not wish to take purely for the benefit of another person, how is that any different than taking my money to redistribute it for their benefit?

  7. What happened to support for local decision making? State governments should neither mandate mask wearing nor prohibit local units from mandating mask wearing.

    — Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 16, 2020

    If only he could drill all the way down to individual autonomy.

    1. doesn’t he have to ask China to do anything?

    2. If only there was a libertarian he could speak to.

  8. Meanwhile, private parties—including such major retailers as Walmart, Target, Starbucks, and CVS—are requiring customers to wear masks. This will help keep shoppers safe without the threat of fines and jail time.

    Because the number of shoppers will decrease, enabling greater social distancing.

  9. Mayor Van Johnson clutches his pearls like a champ.

  10. The mayor has the legal right to do this. It’s an emergency measure. OF COURSE there needs to be checks against the abuse of this power, but a lawsuit by the governor is not the check. Judicial review is.

    I am not partisan here. My own county wanted to relax its rules but needed governor Newsom’s approval. Fuck Newsom and fuck Kemp. They can trigger a judicial review if they want, but the can’t arbitrarily override a local decision on a local matter.

    1. And just how do you think laws/orders/etc get judicial review? It doesn’t just happen. Something has to happen first, but I just can’t quite put my finger on it.

      Can you help me out?

      1. 3. Profit?

    2. “…It’s an emergency measure…”

      A result of the Reichstag fire, herr slaver?
      How about ‘if it saves just one life’? Or ‘it’s for the children’?
      Stuff your excuses up your ass; I’m tired of hearing ‘justification’ for this bullshit.

    3. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

  11. That’s my governor, and I’m proud of him.

    1. I really wasn’t a fan of Kemp when he was running (tjough he was obviously superior to Abrams), but as resistant as I am to it… he’s done a lot right

      1. My governor,also. Will never be proud of him, but he is on the correct side (IMHO). A small city with a population of less than 500K requiring masks, surrounded by a metro area of 6M+ who doesn’t require masks seems a little ridiculous to me.

        1. I’m not a big fan of mine, but he’s better than Cuomo (kind of a low standard, though).

    2. Somewhat underreported, but Kemp actually was touring around the state in order to promote mask wearing as a voluntary measure. He’s also urged businesses to enforce their own sanitary measures to ensure employees stay healthy and they can stay open. He’s a strong advocate of voluntary measures.

      You won’t easily find this story because the narrative is that he wants people, especially black people, to get sick and die. But he’s been a fucking strong advocate for personal responsibility. I didn’t vote for him two years ago but I will almost certainly vote for him in 2022. He’s been right at nearly every step.

      1. Indeed. Some people just don’t get the difference between voluntary and involuntary.

        1. Yeah, it’s “voluntary” so long as you do what I want. If not, well, it’s “voluntary” like paying income tax; at the point of a gun.

      2. “…You won’t easily find this story because the narrative is that he wants people, especially black people, to get sick and die…”

        Along with Granny, the childrunz, women and minorities!

  12. “There is a conceivable libertarian argument for masking requirements, on the grounds that they do more to prevent the wearer from infecting other people than from being infected themselves.” Maybe, if by “libertarian” you mean “fascist.” Face diapers do nothing to stop viruses. Nothing. They are to viruses what chain link is to mosquitos. And by the argument that someone has to be restrained, in the absence of proof of wrongdoing, on the mere possibility that he might affect or infect someone else, then the lockdowns are justified in continuing forever and no one will ever leave home again. Fuck that and fuck you.

    1. “Face diapers do nothing to stop viruses. Nothing. ”

      You’d have a point if the virus was airborne, but its spread by droplets, which masks are quite effective at stopping

      1. It’s not airborne? So no little red berets? Sad.

      2. Irrelevant.
        It is not my job to make sure someone else doesn’t get sick.

        1. It IS your job to make sure you don’t do something to other people though. I can shoot a gun… by it I don’t get to sat to the people I knew to be down range “it’s your duty to duck.”

          I’m not for mandates… but you should be held responsible for negligently infecting others (IF it can be proven it was you and that you had reason to think you might be sick… both legal long shots but if we are addressing the ethics we can assume the facts to determine what is right/wrong for different sets of facts).

          1. “It IS your job to make sure you don’t do something to other people though. I can shoot a gun… by it I don’t get to sat to the people I knew to be down range “it’s your duty to duck.””
            It is NOT my job to prevent the possible infection of others from an illness I may or may not have.

            “I’m not for mandates… but …”
            So you ARE in favor of mandates.
            Fuck off, slaver.

          2. There is a limit there somewhere. Unless you are going to argue that everyone should always wear masks.
            If you are sick, I agree the decent thing to do is to do what you can to avoid infecting others. Stay home if you can. Maybe wear a mask in public. If you aren’t sick, I see no reason why people should be pushed towards doing anything different from what everyone has always done during flu season to avoid spreading infection, which for most people is pretty much nothing beyond keeping distance from obviously sick people and washing your hands.

      3. And what do you think happens to those droplets when they hit the mask? Does any virus that may be hiding inside just disappear? Droplets evaporate, but virions don’t. Once the droplets are gone, there is nothing preventing the virion from hitching a ride on the next breath right out into the room as an aerosol.

        The idea that COVID does not spread by aerosol was sketchy from the start. The flu does. Now they’re finally concluding that COVID does too, and the evidence for this is solid, like how there’s an even distribution of virions throughout the room where a COVID patient had been recovering in bed, facing the same direction. With droplet-borne distribution being the main factor, the concentration in the area the person was facing would be far higher, and aread behind would be at or nearly zero.

        This virus is no different than other respiratory viruses. It has a significant aerosol (airborne) spread modus. Masks could be contributing to that.

    2. “…Face diapers do nothing to stop viruses…”

      Irrelevant.
      It is not my job to make sure someone else doesn’t get sick.

      1. Precisely.

  13. Before March it was illegal in Georgia to wear a mask because you might be a klansman from before most of us were born. Then they made it legal to wear a mask, but you couldn’t be in large group. But then George Floyd and I guess it was then OK to be in large groups – masks optional. Oh, and you could also set stuff on fire and loot and stuff. Now you can’t be in large groups anymore, presumably, but now they want you to be required to wear masks in Atlanta, Savannah, and other blue cities with large black populations.

    The silliness makes me laugh on the inside.

    1. Communist Party of China (not Taiwan) craim sovlin immuniry against State of Misery rawsuit.

      1. That’s a Japanese accent you’re trying to mimic.

  14. Anyone who opposes mask mandates is a frigging moron, liberal or conservative. The government has always had the right to mandate vaccinations. I don’t see a difference here.

    1. Because you don’t want to.

    2. yikes.

    3. Vaccinations don’t impair my breathing. That’s a big difference.

      1. Neither do masks. Wise up, buttercup.

        1. So you know everyone’s medical history?

        2. The only ones that don’t impair breathing fog my glasses. So that’s a good choice: sight or clear breathing and unhot face in July.

        3. “Neither do masks. Wise up, buttercup.”

          Yeah they do and I’m one of the people affected. What sucks even more is that I can no longer say, “I can’t breathe,” because I’ll be accused of appropriating something or whatever and have the woke mob destroy what little is left of my life and livlihood.

          1. Then hit the gym, you fat piece of shit. Stop eating potato chips and chocolate bars.

            1. Fuck off, slaver.

            2. Quit thinking you know every possible medical history, small-minded fool.

        4. “Neither do masks. Wise up, buttercup.”

          Snowflake, nobody gives a shit.
          Fuck off, slaver.

    4. “The government has always had the right to mandate vaccinations.”

      Got anything to back up that claim? I’m pretty sure we would have seen at least a few news reports of anti-vaxxers’ kids being held down and forcibly immunized with MMR vaccines while their ignorant and irresponsible parents wail and gnash their teeth.

      The government has the right to require vaccinations for kids to attend public school. You could argue (poorly) that it’s _effectively_ the same thing because most people cannot homeschool or afford private school for their kids, but it’s still not _actually_ the same thing.

      1. Jacobson v. Massachusetts

        Educate yourself, you fat fuck.

        1. Well, middle age has certainly widened my middle, but I have yet to make it all the way to “fat”. Regardless, thanks for the judgemental non-sequitur.

          First, “always” is quite a stretch, given that the case you cite is from 1905 and the first polio vaccine was produced over a century prior. That alone is sufficient to disprove your assertion, but why should I, as a presumed “fat fuck”, stop embarrassing you with just that?

          Your curt response implies that the case you cite makes everything clear cut, but the reality is more nuanced, as reality so often is:

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/

          Here’s the second paragraph from the “Applying Modern Constitutional Law” section: “The legitimacy of compulsory vaccination programs depends on both scientific factors and constitutional limits. Scientific factors include the prevalence, incidence, and severity of the contagious disease; the mode of transmission; the safety and effectiveness of any vaccine in preventing transmission; and the nature of any available treatment. Constitutional limits include protection against unjustified bodily intrusions, such as forcible vaccination of individuals at risk for adverse reactions, and physical restraints and unreasonable penalties for refusal.”

          I hope you don’t do lawyerin’ for a living…

          1. I hope B does; the world needs more failed lefty shits.

          2. In 1920 they concluded that masks were ineffective against the Spanish Flu.

            https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.10.1.34

    5. “…The government has always had the right to mandate vaccinations…”

      Oh, and:
      You.
      Are.
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.

    6. So that’s a big ‘no’ vote on liberty. Got it.

    7. Well, a lot of people disagree about the question of whether states can mandate vaccinations. And that has nothing to do with whether or not opposing mask mandates makes you a moron, unless you believe that the law is perfect and wise in every way as it is.

  15. Mask mandates are a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act for everyone with any kind of breathing issue.
    All of those mandate include the words about an exemption for those “who cannot wear a masks”, but never set up a procedure to obtain any kind of official exemption. So I thought I would get into a government data base, and emailed my county board member.
    I got this back from the staff:
    “thank you for your inquiry. As a point of clarification, the Mayor’s Executive Order requiring Face Coverings is not an enforceable mandate. As such, there are not procedural requirements in place for those individuals who cannot tolerate a face covering for medical, sensory or any other condition which makes it difficult from them to utilize a face covering.”

    Here is the ‘real’ order, minus all the whereas crap:
    Section 1. Definition. Face Covering shall mean a uniform piece of material that securely covers a person’s nose and mouth and remains affixed in place without the use of one s hands.
    Section 2. Face Coverings Required.
    a. Every person working, living, visiting, or doing business in Orange County is required to wear a Face Covering consistent with the current CDC guideline while in any public place.

    So the words “required to wear a Face Covering” are just an unenforceable mandate. So there are no protections from the mobs and Karens for the disabled. Sad.

    1. You say there are no accommodations in the order. Not in the way you represented it but you have neglected the phrase “consistent with the current CDC guidelines” which do, indeed, have specific exceptions for such situations.
      And how “unenforceable” is a law who’s violation is so obvious? How much more enforceable is a law against littering?, speeding?, jaywalking?

      1. I think enforceability would depend on how much “civil disobedience” the population of a locality is willing to engage in and for how long. If 30% of the populace objects and even half of them challenge the fine in court (regardless of the fact that they’ll all lose), it would overwhelm the local courts and bring police to a standstill (officers would have to be at court for each challenge). In such a situation, it would still be legally enforceable, but not practically enforceable.

        That said, I don’t expect to see that level of civil disobedience anywhere.

        1. We will get there. Even in “we love big government” California, they had to open up a beach because the people decided enough was enough and went there anyway. The more of a hassle it is for the ones demanding the masks, the more quickly they will eliminate it. Hopefully, Wal Mart will get slammed!

  16. I would like to propose a mandate that would prohibit anyone from hitting themselves repeatedly between the eyes with a ball peen hammer. Hopefully this will enhance the present culling of the gene pool with far less collateral damage.

    1. Assuming most people here are libertarian, then your mandate would have little effect on them, though they certainly wouldn’t deny others the right to apply ball peen hammers to themselves.

      Your post fails at both analogy and liberty.

      1. And at intelligence.

    2. HERE► Brilliant article. I had wondered how future generations would view the mind boggling hysteria that is currently gripping the whole world, especially Europe and the USA. We look back at past centurhysteria can be – like a stampede. Thought the writer was a historian, his analysis is so sharpies and wonder how they could have been so stupid. I guess it shows how powerful mass . He has seen through the Emperor’s new clothes!ReadMore.

  17. I think what is overlooked in this, thanks in part to how well the lock-downs went (as in the populace didn’t revolt)… is that states have specific and definable laws regarding health emergencies. You can shutdown a specific business permanently for a disease, you can shut down everything for a short but defined time for a fear of a disease… but you CANNOT shutdown everything indefinitely. Likewise with mask policy or any health emergency policy.

    The threat must be definable and the solution based on reasonable evidence with actions measured to the threat. The threat is now much more understood and not serious outside of a select population. There is no definable threat overcame with mask use and projected outcome is never defined in these face-mask laws, or even time limits and what “success” criteria looks like which triggers reversal. They are simply not legal. The reasonable evidence is that most face-masks outside of n95 or better are at best doing nothing, and more likely causing harm when reused, especially for long periods of time. I would actually argue stores are breaking existing health law by requiring them.

    1. It’s amazing how in all this mask fanaticism few people discuss that masks are useful to the extent that they are used properly. And the disposable one-use masks being reused for days and weeks on end is very unsanitary.

      1. Even for a couple of hours is pushing it.

        1. I got several hundred miles on mine, wearing it as I must upon entering a store or restaurant to gain access to ‘outdoor’ dining, some of which is obviously ‘outdoor’ in name only.
          The standard result when the government takes control of the economy; you’d better know someone.

  18. As a resident of Atlanta-metro, I will absolutely abide the orders of Keisha Lance Bottoms–the mayor of a racist police force (who by the way is 60% African-American) who murdered a man for falling asleep in his car. And then stood idly by while thugs took over her city resulting in businesses being looted and burned to the ground, and also the murder of an 8-year-old girl. I am much more fearful of being murdered in Atlanta than I am of contracting a virus.

    1. Amen to that. I don’t go inside the Perimeter nowadays, except technically for that small part of it in Cobb.

  19. Meanwhile in Michigan, our tyrant Whitless has made an executive order mandating masks throughout the entire state inside any public place and outside if you’re in a crowd with a $500 fine to enforce it.

  20. ENB is gonna dime you out to her antifa and progressitarian buddies, Britches.

  21. I’m on a mission here:
    Given the monetary incentives to blame the flu for any and all deaths, it’s not likely we’ll ever get an honest count.
    Regardless, even if you accept the current over-count, we have given the government control of most of our lives and most of the economy over an illness which has yet to kill more than 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% of the population.

    1. One of the things that aggravates me the most is that if we had remained mostly “open”, but had also heeded the early signals from Italy about the vulnerability of the elderly and those with co-morbidities to protect those groups, then NY, NJ, and other states wouldn’t have caused so many needless deaths. I strongly suspect that if we had done that instead, then on balance, even with a bit more of the general population succumbing to Wuhan SARS, the overall fatalities would be far lower at this point. I cannot prove that, of course. It’s only my casual assessment.

      1. Given the monetary incentives to over-report *and* the outlier NY/NJ numbers, I too am certain the numbers would be lower.

      2. Horseshit. I’ve been talking about this virus in precisely those terms since about a week or two after Wuhan locked down. Everyone on your ‘side’ has spent the last six months denying the virus is anything more than the flu. And now you want to pretend that if only NYNJ had done something different every thing would be Ok.
        For anything different to have happened here you all would have needed to accept reality in Feb. Not continue to deny reality in Jul

        1. It still isn’t anything more than a particularly bad seasonal flu. That doesn’t mean that idiots like Cuomo putting known sick people in nursing homes full of the kind of people that die from the flu in the tens of thousands each year was a bad idea. If he’d deliberately put influenza patients in nursing homes, it would have killed a bunch of old people too, and it would have been just as stupid.

          1. *wasn’t, in my second sentence. Why is there still no edit?

          2. “It still isn’t anything more than a particularly bad seasonal flu. That doesn’t mean that idiots like Cuomo putting known sick people in nursing homes full of the kind of people that die from the flu in the tens of thousands each year was a bad idea…”

            Nor does it account for the obvious over-count, given the incentives.

        2. JFree
          July.18.2020 at 3:15 pm
          “Horseshit. I’ve been talking about this virus in precisely those terms since about a week or two after Wuhan locked down…”
          You are both a lying and a cowardly piece of lefty shit, and none of your attempts to walk back your PANIC will convince anyone other than other slavers.
          Fuck off and die.

    2. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…ReadMore.

  22. It’s funny, I seem to remember Kemp wanting to leave these decisions up to the cities:

    “[Kemp] has resisted calls to take more restrictive action like ordering all people to stay at home or shutting non-essential businesses, and instead left those decisions to local governments. That’s led to a patchwork of various restrictions and orders that have sprung up from cities and counties across the state. (Mar-27-2020)”
    https://www.news4jax.com/news/georgia/2020/03/27/kemp-defends-not-ordering-all-georgians-to-stay-home/

    Then I remember the cities begging Kemp to come up with a statewide policy in order to stop a hodgepodge of different ordinances popping up.

    “Sandy Springs Mayor Rusty Paul said a consensus emerged from about 50 mayors during a Monday call that a “statewide stay-at-home order and other policies were needed to remedy the inconsistent, confusing patchwork of policies now in place.” (Mar-30-2020)”
    https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/georgia-mayors-the-pressure-kemp-for-stricter-coronavirus-measures/Jwj6Nl6VaSb453UnZc3IOP/

    So the cities got exactly what they wanted and as a result have dragged State-level politics into their municipalities. Any look at the State COVID-19 maps (https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report) shows that the state has different COVID situations so there might be a political price to pay for lockdowns in those areas. This is an election year and I’m sure Kemp is looking out for specific Republicans. Let’s not be obtuse here, all people involved are posturing for political optics.

    The problem is, instead of taking full responsibility for their constituents, these cities punted and let the camel’s nose under the tent. The camel is now pulling rank.

  23. HERE► Even Brendan is a transphobe, radfem kind: see his focus on “M2F are a threat to women, they’re potential rapists like all the men” while totally ignoring the existence of F2M (actually the majority among the younger transitions). He also doesn’t care about children transitions issue: he prefer to talk much more about the alleged plights of adult lesbians.
    And if you do not agree he spout “misogyny!” to silence you. ReadMore.

  24. “Mask mandates are dangerous and unjust, regardless of which level of government imposes them.”

    What about the Big Gubment tyranny of forcing me to wear clothing in public?

    Will you Conservatives be demanding that I be allowed to let it all hang free?

    Oh, wait a sec, unlike Covid-19 that disproportionally affects “Those People” who are at greater risk because of the pre-existing conditions compliments of institutionalized racism, will not die in greater numbers if my freedoms are oppressed – Sorry for my forgetting about that when dealing with Conservatives.

    1. I thought maybe this was sarc, but now I see the same fucking whiny rants elsewhere, it seems we have a new fucking lefty ignoramus.
      Stuff it up your ass, so your head has some company, slaver.

    2. Kuni, you suck at everything.

      List or me the :pre existing conditions” that were because of “institutional racism”, David Duke wannabe.

    3. Can you please stop judging people on the basis of their race for just a second? My lord, you people are absolutely obsessed with it.

      Masks are a risk to the people who wear them and are of no benefit to anyone around them. If anything, they should be banned, not mandated (though I am not in favor of bans either).

  25. Opposing mask mandates is like opposing drunk driving laws. You are not libertarians, you’re anarchists. Until you need taxpayer money because you’re fat lazy fucks.

    1. “Opposing mask mandates is like opposing drunk driving laws. You are not libertarians, you’re anarchists…”
      You.
      Are.
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.

    2. This is copied out of the Salt Lake City papers from November 1918. Chinese germ lab operators must be rolling in the aisles watching the GOP and Dems slash each other’s throats over the Communivirus.

  26. By now it is knows what the key steps are to stopping covid: wear a mask, social distance, and use good hygiene. Most of the rest of the world knows and has successfully reduced their numbers to a level that they can mostly go back to normal, and they will keep up the measures. This article and comments illustrates why the US is still having and increase in number of new cases. A large chunk of the population resists every health measure that would have worked, and on top of that a governor is going to court to prevent mask requirements, where he should be doing the opposite. We would have been well on our way to a re-opened society, with kids in schools and people back to work had everyone just cooperated.

    1. “By now it is knows what the key steps are to stopping covid: wear a mask, social distance, and use good hygiene…”

      I got another one for you, snowflake: Scared? Crawl in a hole and stay there. Your health is YOUR concern, not mine.
      Fuck off and die, slaver.

      1. The entire concept of “public good” and “responsibility” is just lost on people like you. We could have been over this.

        1. “We could have been over this.
          You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

        2. We didn’t have to have any “this” in the first place, if we’d recognized from the start that this is not a proper role for government. Sweden and Belarus, what a pair… who would have thought that they would be the only ones to get it right?

          When the “land of the free” has something to learn from the likes of Belarus, that is a real problem.

          1. “When the “land of the free” has something to learn from the likes of Belarus, that is a real problem.”

            Not according to cowardly pieces of lefty shit like MG, Tony, JFree and the lot of them.

      2. Fuck off, you fjat piece of shit anarchist. Libertarians believe that the right to swing your fist ends at the other guy’s nose. By spouting about some right to run around in public without a mask, what you’re doing is swinging your fist around and just hoping that you don’t hit someone. That’s not civilization, and not libertarianism.

        Let me guess. You’re obese, have tattoos, have diabetes and heart problems, and spend your days eating Cheetos. How close am I, you fat fuck?

        1. Your speech is like a punch in the face to logic or sanity, bitch.

        2. “…By spouting about some right to run around in public without a mask, what you’re doing is swinging your fist around and just hoping that you don’t hit someone…”

          Pretty sure MG just above is more than willing to help you carry that straw man around, you pathetic piece of lefty shit. Your fantasies, like your health are YOUR problems, not mine.
          Fuck off, slaver.

        3. The neutral action is not swinging a fist.
          The neutral action is not wearing a mask.
          You can require me not to deviate from the neutral act when it causes a direct and unequivocal harm to others, but you cannot make me do something in servitude to others against my own interests. You certainly cannot do that based on speculation that I _might_ have a virus that _might_ be possible to spread even though I feel fine and that a mask _might_ prevent it from spreading.

          1. And which virus *might* be really, really dangerous.
            So far, we as a nation, have turned over to the government the management of large portions of our lives, and yielded liberties both enumerated and otherwise. Further, we’ve also turned over major portions of the economy to government ‘planning’ and anyone who thinks *that* is going to end well has not read a bit of 20th-century history.
            All of this for something which (assuming we accept the bloated count) has killed 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% of the population.
            You have to be some cowardly piece of lefty shit or a flat-out slaver to think that’s a good bargain.

    2. By now it is knows what the key steps are to stopping covid: wear a mask, social distance, and use good hygiene.

      IT IS KNOWN!

      According to what? Do you have one single fact to back up those assertions or is “everybody’s doing it so it must be correct” good enough for you?

      1. We can look at other countries and see what works. And they can look at us and know what not to do.

        1. These fat Cheetos eating fucks think they have a right to make other people sick.

          1. No, we just have a right to make you sick.

            Fat fuck.

          2. “These fat Cheetos eating fucks think they have a right to make other people sick.

            Fucking lefty ignoramuses think they have a “right” to never getting sick.Is your mommy here to tell the adults why the whiny asshole B is somehow due the “right” that the government force everyone else to keep his pathetic ass healthy?
            Grow up.

          3. The virus makes people sick. Viruses are not here posting on this forum. I cannot make anyone sick, as I am just a mammal, not a virus.

          4. Go masturbate in your jackboots instead of wearing them, fucko.

        2. Well, my pastor says praying is the most effective way to cure illnesses and that’s been working for thousands of years. I guess we can all just look at religion as an example of what to do because it’s flawless and never fails to cure diseases.

          1. Fine, go prey, in addition to wearing a mask.

            1. Stuff my mask up your ass, slaver.

            2. It’s pray.

              Neither one will work to stop COVID, but at least praying won’t harm you.

  27. Did you know there’s a “deep detox” you can do first thing in the morning to burn more fat? And the good news is It only takes 13-seconds! Here it is—>>Click For Full Detail Here.

  28. If masks work, then open up the states.
    If they don’t work, then what’s the point of wearing them?
    Oh, sorry.
    I had a rare moment of sanity there for a moment.
    Please don’t tell anyone.
    My reputation would be ruined.

    1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…

      ==================► Home Profit System

  29. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month .EDs . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hrHeres what I do… Read More. 

  30. I know how to get libertarians to wear masks. They’ll be wearing them all the time, pandemic or not.

    Government Leak: Cops Terrified Masks Block Facial Recognition

    https://futurism.com/the-byte/government-leak-cops-terrified-masks-block-facial-recognition

    1. Libertarians are currently on the side of the armed government thugs. Just wait a bit and Biden will be president and they’ll be back to normal.

      1. “Libertarians are currently on the side of the armed government thugs.”

        Your fevered fantasies are your problems, not mine, shitstain.

    2. Oh, Geno tries to make a funny!
      Fuck off, slaver.

  31. The Reason Foundation could fade bets on these outcomes and with just a small rake-off pay off the building mortgage.

  32. uptil I saw the bank draft four $4331, I accept that my neighbours mother was actualy taking home money in their spare time at there computar..AZs there great aunt haz done this 4 only about ten months and resantly took care of the morgage on their mini mansion and got a great new Mazda.

    you can try this out…………………Click For Full Details.

  33. “Libertarians are currently on the side of the armed government thugs.”

    Your fevered fantasies are your problems, not mine, shitstain. Hindi-Shayari Check out

  34. uptil I saw the bank draft four $4331, I accept that my neighbours mother was actualy taking home money in their spare time at there computar..AZs there great aunt haz done this 4 only about ten months and resantly took care of the morgage on their mini mansion and got a great new Mazda. HERE? Read More

  35. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these.Make 5000 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website……………………<Click For Full Details.

  36. The governor is taking the local government off the back of the people and restoring freedom of choice. Justin Amash is wrong. If a local government is controlling and the governor smacks them down when they overstep, he is the friend of liberty and freedom. If you are wearing a mask by choice, you are protecting yourself, not the right of any government to be a nanny, city, county, state or federal.

  37. So one thing the libertarian perspective does not take into account at least in this article is uncertainty. The author talks about how masks work which is correct that they do more to protect people from the mask wearer than the mask wearer from other people. And then said something to the effect that well this mandate is made independent of whether or not the person has Covid. But since many folks are asymptomatic or symptoms take up to two weeks to show up people can’t know if they have or do not have covid at any given time.

    I wonder what the author thinks about seatbelts and vaccines? I know libertarians hate government mandates even when they’re in the public interest. But freedom comes with responsibility.

    If reasonable measures had been in here to from the beginning including mandating face coverings in public (or private businesses) the US would be in a place to stay if we have students return to school and to renew the economy.

    Libertarians sometimes live in a world of theory. Certain things are necessary out of pragmatism. There is no slippery slope here. To argue that logic is on the side of the government is illogical in and of itself.

    1. “…I wonder what the author thinks about seatbelts and vaccines?…”

      No mandates.

  38. My last month paycheck was for 11000 … All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hourHERE? learn More

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.