[jointpdf]

I can think of a few reasons:

- 75% of Americans (incl. a majority of republicans) support mask mandates. (The US isn’t a direct democracy, but mask mandates have the green light from the general public). [https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-understanding-the-out...]

- One of the main functions of any government is to mitigate the harm that people do to one another. This is the main thing that distinguishes it from anarchy. Not wearing a mask in crowded places (in expectation) causes harm to others. Obviously there is a cost/benefit involved, so welding people into their homes is too extreme.

- There is effectively zero enforcement of these mandates. I’ve never seen cops or workers enforce these rules. On the other hand, if I walked into a grocery store without pants on, I’d bet my ass that I’d get swiftly carted off to the loony bin.

[thebeefytaco]

- Authoritarianism can be supported by majority, and that first point is essentially argumentum ad populum. The US isn't a direct democracy for good reason, as that is essentially mob/majority rule, and erodes the rights of individuals.

- If we're referring to the US, it really doesn't matter what the functions of other governments may be. The founding fathers clearly defined the responsibilities of the federal goverment, and it isn't their job to protect you from any sort of harm. I don't see how that would line up with anything in the enumerated powers. Ignoring the US, the act is still authoritarian whether you agree with it or not, as it's an order from the top down which limits individual freedom. Again, whether people agree with it or not is a moot point.

- Your point here is anecdotal, and I don't think selective enforcement of the law is nessecarily a good thing. If it's not enforced at all, why make it a mandate and not a recommendation? Also the enforcement or lack thereof of a law/order has nothing to do with the authoritatian nature of it.

While these points you're making may be reasons you think it's a good idea, I don't think you've made a case that it wouldn't be authoritarian. I'm not even saying that inherently makes the idea bad, but you should call it what it is.

To be clear, I'm not against wearing masks. I've had N95s since before this pandemic and wear them whenever I go out in public, moreso to help proyrct others than myself. I am however very weary of granting the goverment authority like that and setting precedent during a national crisis that would erode our liberties long after the fact, like the patriot act.

[jointpdf]

You’re right that majority rule is not sufficient by itself, but public opinion should be given at least some weight in a representative democracy.

The US Constitution grants states the right to enact laws that protect the general welfare, and of course gives courts the authority to interpret the law. More specifically regarding public health, the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson vs. Massachusetts upheld the power of states to enforce mandatory vaccination laws (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts):

> ”real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others”

In general, John Stuart Mill’s harm principle is “far and away the best known proposal for a principled limit to the law” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/#cand), and it is a core tenet of liberalism. The famous bit is:

> ”That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

This principle is echoed in the party platform of the US Libertarian Party:

> ”Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.”

So if masks only protected the wearer, then a case could be made that mask laws are in violation of this principle. But because masks help limit the spread of a (frequently asymptomatic) disease from myself to others, it’s reasonable that states can require me to wear one in situations where it protects others.

As for the enforcement question, I’d draw a comparison to speed limits. These laws tend to be loosely enforced, yet they guide the general expectations/behavior of drivers. In practice, enforcement is reserved for repeat and extreme offenders. Partial enforcement can induce optimal behavior in an economic/game theoretic sense (if probability of being caught * cost of being caught - cost of following the law > 0, then compliance is optimal). Since the “cost” of wearing a mask is negligible (everyone has one already since you can use any face covering, and the only cost is minor inconvenience or embarrassment), enforcement does not have to be very consistent to induce compliance. That said, uneven enforcement of laws is clearly a major problem in our society (that disproportionately affects minorities).

For mask laws, I also think it gives air cover to both business and individuals. You’ll notice businesses pointing to mask ordinances (“welp, thems the rules” etc.) on their signage and such. Then, enough people comply such that it becomes socially enforced—people generally don’t like to be the odd one out. But in practice, I think you can go virtually anywhere in America right now without a mask and the worst thing that is likely to happen is that someone will politely ask you to wear one and come back.

So if you are not anti-mask but are concerned about genuinely authoritarian action, there are current examples to denounced (e.g. stoking political violence against opposing politicians [see Gov. Whitmer], undermining election integrity, state-sponsored misinformation).

[xyzzyz]

The US Constitution grants states the right to enact laws that protect the general welfare

The writers of the constitution have explicitly said in the Federalist papers that the "general welfare" phrase is not meant to imply anything beyond the enumerated powers listed afterwards. That the courts interpret it the way you say they do is just an example how the Constitution became just a parchment which is taken to mean whatever is convenient at any particular moment.