Some Confusion About Mask Resistance

As a follow up to my post, The Importance of Resistance to Government Ordered Mask-Wearing, a couple of Twitter commenters appear to have entirely missed the point of the post.

It makes sense to look at their comments and breakdown the confusion.

There is this:

I'm skeptical that masks are the hill to die on, rather than freedom of assembly.

— Ryan Schmitt (@RyanCSchmitt) August 6, 2020

Nowhere in my post did I hint about dying on any hill. Indeed, I said the exact opposite:

 Given the level of oppression, it is obvious we can't go into full resistance mode everywhere we go but we should resist to the degree we can unless it gets us into serious trouble.

But if it only causes trouble for them (some agent of the state or self-appointed agent of the state), then go for it.

The idea of resistance, the way I see it, is to advance the decent life and eliminate the obstacles of tyranny.

General Patton understood this even when it came to war:

No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.

Now, I am not talking about shooting anyone, that makes no sense, but it also means there is no reason that we put ourselves in a situation where we die on a hill.


And nowhere did I suggest that other forms of resistance not be practiced. However, I did make clear that those who don't wear masks may come up against random objections (and worse) at any time. This makes mask resistance a perfect dry run on learning how to resist in one-on-one situations:

The mask-wearing edicts are a relatively minor burden for those of us who aren't required to wear masks all day, but we don't know what is coming down the road in terms of future tyranny. It is very important to learn now how to deal with different situations for the future when the stakes might be much higher.

The resistance to masks is a dry run for us.

We are learning who reacts to us and how easy or difficult it is to get what we want.

The freedom of assembly is an important concept if we respect that idea from a libertarian perspective but it is not the kind of concept we can support that is going to bring us into direct contact on a random basis with individuals the way the lack of mask-wearing will. It is far from the same kind of dry run that mask resistance will give us.

And the type of resistance we will be getting for not wearing a mask, the one-on-one confrontations, are just the kind of confrontations we need to study, prepare for and learn how to deal with.

Then there was this:

Thanks. Wenzel sidestepped that private property owners may legit arbitrarily oblige guest masking/not as condition of entry. Overlooked that many libertarians espouse masks. Gave no tools nor attention to challenging _government_ mandates, the only tyranny and relevant issue.

— John Clensis (@johnclensis) August 6, 2020

First, I made clear throughout the post that my discussion was referring to state edicts and mini-agents of the state. In the current environment, most private owners who are mandating masks are doing so based on the statist edicts--to be in good with the state or avoid confrontation with the state and in some cases posing as a "good" citizen. Corporations may also mandate masks because of statist liability laws.

It is important, perhaps more important than dealing with the state itself, to learn how to deal with these mini-agents that the government flips. Using the private sector and individuals citizens has always been a key method of oppression by tyrants---force the people to police themselves by fear and threat.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with objecting to a request from a private property owner to be exempt from a mask-wearing request. There is nothing to "sidestep," we are blasting away at the government, if the private owner continues to refuse an objection then we must either comply with the mask-wearing or leave. There is no private property violation.

I repeat again, this is about learning how to deal with oppression if it gets worse. If, say, price controls are imposed some businesses may follow the letter of the government edicts. Others may be willing to take a couple of dollars under the table. There is absolutely nothing wrong to poke and probe at such time to see if there is opportunity existing beyond the price control edicts.

It is the same with masks. We can poke and probe to see where there is private sector flexibility. I frequent a number of private businesses where I keep my mask under my nose. They look the other way. If I didn't test, I would never know that this freedom is granted me. No business in the current environment is going to post a sign saying, "We look the other way if you wear your mask under your nose." How are you going to know if you don't probe?

There are other situations where the businesses are much stricter, I still poke and probe but in the end if I am not able to make a breakthrough, I either resign myself to the situation and wear the mask including over my nose or go somewhere else.

There is nothing anti-libertarian about any of this.

And the point that some libertarians may want to wear masks has nothing to do with the resistance. If they willing want to expose themselves to human gaseous waste, no sound libertarian will object. The resistance is about being forced by the state to inhale human gaseous waste.

As far as my not providing any tools, I did write:

Right now, I am thinking about responses that can work against raving lunatics, difficult employees in stores, etc. I have some thoughts and will try them out and report back.

In fact, I originally planned to write today about how to deal with screaming maniacs. I have some unique ideas but because I am responding to this today that post will be put up tomorrow.

-RW