Craze, wonder how Old Abe would feel if he had observed the 1918 Influenza epidemic or Covid. Also, the strong possibility of enemy biological warfare.To me, this is why we need to restrict law and government to that which protects ourselves from each other. I keep referencing Lincoln's "legitimate object" quote -- both because I think it's so brilliantly stated and also because it seems as timely as ever. But I think we can apply it even to an issue like masks.
Here's the full quote again, and I'll comment on the bolded part below.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves---in their separate, and individual capacities.In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions.The first---that in relation to wrongs---embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and non-performance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself.From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.
Something like the wearing of masks clearly belongs in the "It's a good idea, you should do it to protect your health" category. Vaccines, same thing.
But we cross a line when we go into "You have to get vaccinated. You have to wear a mask." At that point, whoever is enforcing these rules has crossed that critical line. It was accepted more than normal during Covid, because we were told that masks and vaccination not only protect one's own health, they also protect the health of others around you. It's similar to the argument that led to smoking bans.
I don't doubt that second-hand smoke is unhealthy for people. But, to me, this isn't justification for imposing smoking bans on private property. If they want to ban it on public property, more power to them.
Think he would put such attacks in the category of requiring a "combined action" response.