From: Darin Avery
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 9:25 AM
Subject: on mandatory mask wearing
Walter,
Theoretically it seems plausible that this could be compatible with NAP.
What mechanism guarantees that it is in any particular case? In other words, who bears the burden of proving that 1) a harmful pathogen is out there, 2) it transmits human-human via breath or air, and 3) masks suppress that transmission? How high is the burden? Preponderance? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
In at least one state, the governor “ordered” (ie, violated article 4 section 4 guarantee that every state shall have a republican form of
government) “lockdowns” (ie, prohibitions on association and travel) and the state supreme court suspended certain legal time limits back in march-may-july based on things like “the WHO declared” rather than a party proving, subject to cross examination and rebuttal, that any problem existed and that those remedies would solve it. I see the revocation of the fundamental rights to associate and travel on such grounds legally problematic (it generally takes convincing 12 jurors beyond reasonable doubt to deprive of liberty) and highly problematic from the NAP standpoint. (as in, what individual can tolerate aggression without seeing proof? he surely can’t rely solely on the word of a governor who himself acknowledges no knowledge but has a prop in a lab coat next to him at every press conference. Nor can bystanders that would come to his aid.) What say you?
Thanks,
Darin
Dear Darin:
What say I? If I were a judge, I would throw out all government impositions, requirements, mandates, restrictions, as a violation of rights.
However, I say this not as a praxeological matter, but rather based on my own prudential judgement of the situation. It is an empirical matter, not one of logic, in my view. Not one, solely, of libertarian theory:
Block, Walter E. 2020. “A libertarian analysis of the Covid-19 pandemic.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1; https://jls.scholasticahq.com/article/17836-a-libertarian-analysis-of-the-covid-19-pandemic?auth_token=1jZ-UoctwxQnkYZLFJZR
On the other hand, stipulate that covid is 5x, 10x, 100x more dangerous than I think it now is. Somewhere along this progression, I would change my judicial decision. Where?
I don’t know where, but see this on that:
Block, Walter E. and William Barnett II. 2008. “Continuums” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 151-166, June; http://www2.units.it/~etica/; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2008_1/BLOCKBARNETT.pdf
Best regards,
Walter
5:31 am on December 25, 2020
