The pandemic has eroded democracy and respect for human rights

As an example, banning certain words could be considered a "mild inconvenience", but it's clearly a violation of the first amendment.

Border patrol and other police checkpoints, are a "mild inconvenience". They may very well help catch more criminals, but police need to have probable cause and can't just go on fishing expeditions.

As far as a _federal_ mask mandate, it's clearly not within the enumerated powers. I think you could potentially make an argument for state/local mask mandates when it comes to _public_ areas, given that all powers not granted to the federal goverment are reserved for the states and the people. I would still probably consider that authoritarian in nature.

That's just for masks as well. As far as locking down or limiting size of gatherings, while it may be a very good idea to do something like that during a pandemic, Imo it wouldn't be constitutional, as the freedom of assembly is explicitly protected in the first amendment.

Freedom can be dangerous, but I prefer it to the alternative.

The US Constitution grants states the right to enact laws that protect the general welfare, and of course gives courts the authority to interpret the law. More specifically regarding public health, the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson vs. Massachusetts upheld the power of states to enforce mandatory vaccination laws (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts):

> ”real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others”

In general, John Stuart Mill’s harm principle is “far and away the best known proposal for a principled limit to the law” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/#cand), and it is a core tenet of liberalism. The famous bit is:

> ”That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

This principle is echoed in the party platform of the US Libertarian Party:

> ”Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.”

So if masks only protected the wearer, then a case could be made that mask laws are in violation of this principle. But because masks help limit the spread of a (frequently asymptomatic) disease from myself to others, it’s reasonable that states can require me to wear one in situations where it protects others.

As for the enforcement question, I’d draw a comparison to speed limits. These laws tend to be loosely enforced, yet they guide the general expectations/behavior of drivers. In practice, enforcement is reserved for repeat and extreme offenders. Partial enforcement can induce optimal behavior in an economic/game theoretic sense (if probability of being caught * cost of being caught - cost of following the law > 0, then compliance is optimal). Since the “cost” of wearing a mask is negligible (everyone has one already since you can use any face covering, and the only cost is minor inconvenience or embarrassment), enforcement does not have to be very consistent to induce compliance. That said, uneven enforcement of laws is clearly a major problem in our society (that disproportionately affects minorities).

For mask laws, I also think it gives air cover to both business and individuals. You’ll notice businesses pointing to mask ordinances (“welp, thems the rules” etc.) on their signage and such. Then, enough people comply such that it becomes socially enforced—people generally don’t like to be the odd one out. But in practice, I think you can go virtually anywhere in America right now without a mask and the worst thing that is likely to happen is that someone will politely ask you to wear one and come back.

So if you are not anti-mask but are concerned about genuinely authoritarian action, there are current examples to denounced (e.g. stoking political violence against opposing politicians [see Gov. Whitmer], undermining election integrity, state-sponsored misinformation).

> “He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.”

In accordance with this principle, I believe in the sacred right for an individual to smoke/chew/snort/whatever tobacco and chug high fructose corn syrup to their heart’s content (or more accurately, until their heart fails). But you don’t have the right to expose others to second-hand tobacco smoke (a new development in my lifetime!), since abundant scientific evidence says that this harms others. You can drink yourself into a coma, but you can’t get blitzed and operate a vehicle even if you insist that you’re safe driving under the influence.

This has been a fundamental organizing principle of society since at least the Code of Hammurabi.

For rates to go up prices must come down, and the central bank can QE at any price to stop that happening whenever it feels like it.

Carry on betting against Japan though if you believe otherwise. The widow maker trade has taken many over the years.

Both are true -> EU citizens are much older.