I see nothing wrong with asking someone to wear a mask
Going at them with the legal weight of the state if they refuse to do so is perhaps a different matter
I could see some trepidation to involve the states force in any matter relating to personal choices or affairs... but I also must point out- a request is simply that. People may say yes or no. If I request a person not drink and drive- they may say no. They may be right. Plenty of people drink and drive every day without issues. Who am I to tell someone else who says “I can handle a trip to the store, I’ve done this plenty of times..” that I know their abilities better than them? BUT
Well... there is a conflicting matter of personal freedom. Why can’t I drive a cobbled together truck hauling high explosives at 100mph through your neighborhood? These are all personal freedoms. But that’s obviously unsafe right? And to actually have and be able to use whatever freedoms you have- we need for you to be able to walk out your front door without risking getting ran over, blown up, electrocuted, etc. due to foreseeably preventable causes no?
So then- here is Dan. Dan needs supplies to survive. He must go to the store. There is a deadly virus. For Dan to be able to go to the store, to walk the public streets and enter a business that provides basic needs- isn’t there a responsibility to provide for that freedom by minimizing the chances that the choices of another person will get Dan killed?
That’s the overlap. Where the choice of one person endangers another, or presents an option where the person must either accept a danger created by another’s choice, or not exercise their freedoms.
If we had no road laws, if every highway was “Mad Max” that would be an ultimate expression of individual freedom. Without the government telling people what vehicles are safe or how to haul their cargo or not to drive high explosives on bridges, when to use their signals or how to drive their own darn vehicle as they see fit. BUT- now anyone wanting to use the road system must either put themselves in the very real danger that presents, or not use it. That hurts their freedom, it hurts commerce, it hurts society.
The basic argument of minimal government intervention in personal affairs is one I support. That said- “minimal” I read as “minimal as practical by demonstrated action.” Parents must send kids to school. The government is telling parents how to raise their kids. It’s their kid. Who knows what the kid needs more, then or the government? Well... sometimes it turns out... actually the government. Parents often do horrible things to kids and often will say it’s for their good. Wether it’s hard labor or beatings or even sexual abuse that “builds character” or whatever else.
The government is there when you get married, when you eat divorced. They are there when you are born and when you die. They are there in your home and on the street. Because some things we can’t ask. “Please don’t murder anyone...” ok. Well... that one doesn’t work. So- when you ask someone to do something REALLY important and critical for the safety and freedom of others and the functioning of an entire country, and they say “I’ll pass...” you kinda need someone to put some force behind the request. It isn’t a request. “Do this, or else.” We don’t have police and military and judges and all that because the constitution is a request. It’s law.
The foundation of American freedom promises life and liberty- it says nothing nor alludes to these things being granted only to or based upon whom has the ability to seize and defend them in their daily lives. The union exists to provide the framework by which these things may be enjoyed by all, with certain civic duties to ensure continued enjoyment for all. It would not work very well to have a democracy, much less one founded on freedom- to have it be a mere suggestion or request that everyone respect that. Freedom without teeth is a transitive phase to despotism. Absolute freedom is the freedom to, if one chooses, subjugate freedom no?
Hence there is some overlap where freedoms must be defended and upheld through enforcement. Sometimes where two freedoms are not compatible- there must be compromise. My freedom to listen to death metal on a concert sound system at max volume at 3am does not best your freedom to... sleep in peace, and certainly not the freedom of the 5 block radius no?
A persons freedom to smoke does not best your freedom to enjoy your dinner without the smell- let alone the risk of cancer no? My freedom to do sick jumps in my truck doesn’t trump your freedom to not worry about a truck falling through your roof does it? My freedom to kick someone’s ass for getting smart doesn’t trump their freedom to speak freely and not get their ass kicked does it? Can you legally fire guns in the air to celebrate your new haircut? Fireworks in a dry grass because it needed something exciting. Asking people not to do these things seems a little weak.
A mask is article of protective gear. The state has any number of laws regarding required protective gear such as motorcycle helmets, reflective vests, hard hats, etc. Why is there no uproar over these things?
You do not carry a weapon to defend others, you carry it to defend yourself. Nobody has any obligation to go seeking out trouble nor can they be asked or obliged to defend the lives of others as a private citizen. Any good samaritan who chooses to defend others should be commended and thanked, but it ain't their job or responsibility to get involved.
Many times it is used as an argument for why someone needs to carry a gun. I don’t recall an instance of you using that reasoning but I’ve heard it several times.
It allows for the POTENTIAL for a good samaritan to defend others, and if one were caught in the midst of an active situation, they would have to engage the threat out of self-defense, with the bonus of defending others. But no private citizen simply going about their lives can be compelled or expected to get involved in a life or death situation that has nothing to do with them. Self-defense is an individual right, not an obligation to any collective.
Going at them with the legal weight of the state if they refuse to do so is perhaps a different matter