People are naturally endowed with the ability to cause harm to each other. This fact is made obvious by the prolific rates of warfare and conflict among humans. Some have theorized that at the origins of civilization, individuals formed societies by entering into a mutual contract to aid in the defense and safety for all. In order for these contracts to survive and maintain their beneficiality to each person involved, laws had to be introduced that would clearly define the boundaries between individual rights and group welfare.
The social contract granted to each and every person the “natural laws” of life, liberty, and property. Though everyone is endowed equally with these rights, your rights end where another persons’ rights begin. Everyone cannot have unlimited liberty, or it would be within their liberty to violate that of others. This philosophical logic provides the basis and justification of government intervention in the actions of the people to promote the general welfare.
Though there is a certain warrant to argue for government intervention to protect the overall health of the population, there are valid concerns when it comes to criticisms of the extent of the government’s authority. The main concern often goes: what are the limits to the government’s authority once you declare they have the power to limit individual liberties when they see fit?
In the era of COVID-19, the government has had to enforce precautions in an effort to quell the rising numbers of infections. Organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have worked endlessly to keep track of reported cases and issue advisories to health officials on precautions that could slow or prevent the spread of the disease. The most notable public health precaution that has been implemented all around the country has been a mandate requiring that masks be worn in indoor public spaces. In recent months, this mandate has received a considerable amount of opposition from radical ideologists claiming that requiring individuals to wear masks is a violation of their liberty. The anti-mask movement has gained enough traction that several states have issued laws banning the implementation of such mandates. The movement justifies its choices in claims that requiring people to wear masks is outside of the boundary of what the government can enforce, expressing a fear that the government will use this opportunity to expand its power.
This fear is only compounded by examples of historical transgressions by the government, such as in the controversial Typhoid Mary case. Mary Mallon, or “Typhoid Mary,” was a woman who was found to be a carrier of typhoid. She was identified through the common occurrence of cases of typhoid in houses where she had been hired as a cook. The government forcibly quarantined Mallon, much to her distress, in the name of public safety. Mallon’s objection to government-enforced quarantine stemmed partially from the fact she believed she was being targeted because she was an Irish immigrant. During that time, there was a widespread prejudiced view of immigrants as unclean and unfitting to society’s standards. As typhoid carriers often do not manifest symptoms of the disease themself, Mallon had no reason to believe herself the epicenter of the sickness and saw only the government declaring her a “disease carrier” and attempting to isolate her from society.
Mallon’s perception of the government’s reasons for quarantining her might not have been completely invalid. Her fears highlight the origins of the widespread view that government intervention often disproportionately impacts and oppresses minority groups. Her case is starkly contrasted by that of another carrier at the time, Frederick Moersch, who it is widely believed because of his higher social standing relative to Mallon, was treated less harshly and even allowed to live at home after a brief quarantine in the same facility that Mallon was forced to stay in for the rest of her life. In view of the historical evidence, the argument against the government having the ability to enforce public health protocols seems more justified.
Additionally, those fearing oppression from the government have taken issue especially with the distance of the federal government, a concern that has arisen frequently since the establishment of the country. This is the reason the United States Constitution established powers of the federal government and separated these from powers of the state government. The closer the level of government is to the actual people being affected by the laws, the more the laws can be curated to regional differences and the more people will trust government decisions. For this reason, the decision of whether or not to enact mandatory masking policies has fallen on state and local governments. The results are shown in the enormous variance of policy enforcement all around the United States.
However, the division on this issue has only been exacerbated by the pre-existing conditions of the country. The pandemic occurred at a time rife with political polarization and settled easily among the other issues that define the divide between parties. The disease first came into the public eye in a manner that coincided with the upcoming 2020 United States presidential election. Political issues were at the forefront of the public mind, and the issue of handling the virus was a crucial player amongst debate topics. In such an atmosphere, almost anything became a partisan issue. It’s no surprise then that groups were divided over the legal morality of the enforcement of public health measures.
Politics have warped the issue of public safety and turned it into a debate shaped by age-old party divides rather than one about the people that it’s supposed to be protecting. What’s been lost in the process is the true purpose of the mandates: to prevent those at risk and most vulnerable to severe and fatal symptoms from contracting COVID-19. People’s lives are on the line in this issue. Limiting the spread is how we ensure that their natural right to life isn’t unjustly taken away from them.
The realities of the current pandemic are vastly different from the case of Typhoid Mary. Mask mandates don’t target specific people; everyone has to wear them. These mandates have been proven by scientific research to lower rates of infection. There’s nothing subjective about this issue.
How is mandatory masking different from the enforcement of any law? We have laws to prevent murder and theft based on the principle that these actions cause harm and violate the individual liberty of others. We have laws requiring seat belts be worn when driving which in principle follows the same format of requiring individuals to undertake protective action in the name of health and security. If people don’t protest these laws, on what basis do they protest mandatory mask policies?
It’s time to acknowledge that the war against masking isn’t driven by government fear of violation of personal freedoms. It’s driven by entitlement. People feel they are entitled to do what they want, regardless of who they hurt.
Image by Jievani Weerasinghe is licensed under the Unsplash License.
