By Joshua Munroe / For The Herald
Gov. Jay Inslee’s statewide mask order, which took effect June 26, has had its fair share of detractors.
For many, the requirement to wear a face mask in public as a preventative act against the COVID-19 pandemic is inconvenient and disruptive to daily routines. However, those claiming “personal liberty” as justification for ignoring or defying social distance and face-mask protocols only acknowledge half of what liberty means. This half-acknowledgment can and will hurt their own case in the long run.
The COVID-19 response at the state and federal levels is commonly framed as a “public welfare vs. liberty” argument by both sides of the mask debate. One side argues that requiring face mask use promotes the public welfare through preventing disease transmission in public spaces, while the other side argues that such requirements impinge on individual liberties, especially if fines or other punishments are levied against those refusing to wear a mask.
The argumentation used by those opposing mandatory mask orders relies almost exclusively on an expression of short-term negative liberty, when an understanding of government’s role in promoting positive liberty through collective coordinated action is necessary to best address the pandemic and re-open our communities sooner.
The difference between negative and positive liberty is most succinctly understood as a difference between “freedom from” and “freedom to.” Negative liberty is often expressed as an individual’s “freedom from” government constraint. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which prevents governmental interference in religious practices, is a clear example of a negative liberty. Positive liberty involves “freedom to” do something or the ability to make autonomous decisions about how one’s life goes.
Rather than refraining from action, this view of freedom might require government to provide resources or act in other ways to solve problems involving public coordination. Public education is one such example of positive liberty, upholding the view that all members of society should be free to pursue education and to be free from the ill-effects of ignorance.
The two sides of liberty come in conflict on a regular basis, and in some cases negative liberties are suspended without any concern. Imagine a police officer taking the car keys from someone under the influence of alcohol before they have a chance to get behind the wheel. That individual might claim they have been deprived of a liberty to drive when they pleased. However, by infringing on that individual’s immediate negative liberty, the officer protects the more important freedom we all have to drive safely on the road without fear of drunk drivers.
A similar argument can be made with regards to the statewide mask order in Washington. Requiring individuals to wear a face mask under penalty of fines does deprive them of a negative liberty, but it strengthens a greater liberty which can only be protected through coordinated public action, it creates conditions by which we can all safely access social services and businesses. Furthermore, any effect on negative liberty can and should be temporary provided widespread mask use is maintained until COVID-19 is brought under control.
It is fine to express annoyance and frustration at a statewide mask order, but choosing to defy such requirements based on a liberty-based argument ignores the long-term welfare and liberty harm that may be done.
In situations such as the state response to COVID-19, wearing a mask in public spaces is an expression of liberty. It shows that we want freedom to access our communities and economy, and that we want a freedom from disease.
Joshua Munroe, a doctoral candidate at Washington State University’s School of Politics, Philosphy and Public Affairs, is a fellow at WSU’s Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
