you to do so. So businesses already have all the tools they need to enforce mask wearing themselves. There is
no need for government interference.
It is important for you to understand that every law and every regulation the government passes comes with a
gun pointed at its citizens. Ifa law is not backed by force it has no weight; it is unenforceable. If you intend to
pass an ordinance requiring mask wearing, you will need to exert force and violence to give it meaning. You
will need to arrest people when they don't pay the fine. You are effectively saying that people who don't want to
wear a mask should be jailed. You need to understand that is the end result of any regulation. In the end,
(capitalizing for emphasis because this is a long email) ANY LAW OR ORDINANCE IS NOT ABOUT
WHETHER THE BEHAVIOR (in this case mask wearing) IS DESIRABLE OR WHETHER WE WISH
PEOPLE WOULD DO IT. IT IS A STATEMENT THAT IF SAID BEHAVIORS SHOULD NOT BE
ADHERED TO, THE GOVERNMENT IS WILLING TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE.
There is an absolutely poetic example of this in the book Altas Shrugged where Henry Rearden refuses to sell
the government steel. There was a law passed called the Fair Share Law, which basically stated that if the
government required the use ofa "strategic material" for "the public good", the business was required to sell it
to the government at the government's set price. Rearden refused to sell. People kept saying "but you have to it's
the law". So he said "I will not sell my steel to the government. If they wish to come here and take my steel by
force, they are welcome to do so but I will not sell it", to which they replied "but that's theft!" Yes, it is. Exactly.
Later on, he's called before a tribunal and continuously, the judges try to make it clear that this is in the public
good, that their price is fair, they cannot understand why he won't comply. He won't comply for the very simple
reason that it is not a voluntary transaction. It is theft. He brings the logic to its final conclusion in such a
wondrous way, by basically saying "I will not sell my steel. If you choose to fine me for that, I will not pay it. If
you choose to arrest me for that, you had better send guns because I will not come willingly. I will make you
take me by force because that's what this law is: it states that I must give you my steel or you will send men to
my house with guns". When the tribunal says "no one is talking about sending men with guns", he says "then
why are we here"? (here is a link to the scene, it's only 4 minutes long https://youtu.be/_iHRJ4s9Ety, for
context Rearden owns the steel that is used to build the railroads which is basically the only way the economy
stays afloat. The blonde woman the camera keeps panning to is the owner of the railroad company, with whom
Rearden has been in business for a long time. I highly encourage watching the entire two part movie, but it is
really long and somewhat difficult to follow, not a light watch. So clips on YouTube may be the way to go!)
With that in mind, I want it to be known, that should an ordinance be passed requiring me to wear a mask in
public, I will not comply. Should a fine be instituted for not wearing a mask in public I will not pay it. You will
need to exert physical violence to enforce your ordinance (like any law). Is that something you are willing to
do? If so, you have become the textbook definition of tyrants.
Respectfully,
A concerned citizen
PS. In the spirit of constructive feedback and suggestions, it is well within the role and scope of government to
enable businesses to enforce these rules themselves if they so choose. You could pass an ordinance raising fines
or making it easier for businesses to remove people who refuse to comply with their own private rules. That
way if a business deems this requirement necessary for their safety, they will be able to enforce it themselves,
and businesses that do not want to impose such restrictions on their customers will not. This is a freedom-
friendly way to achieve your goals.
