My quick investigation indicated the museam was owned and operated by a 501c3 nonprofit, so yes private. It's not operated by the gov't, though it is possible it gets gov't subsidies of some sort. Which in this case would incentivize the establishment to follow guidelines.

I do not consider being able to do whatever you feel like doing on someone elses property a legitmate right.

Conversely, I'd point to the quote in my signature here: "For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57) "

In this discourse, the protestors are "every other man"

It is simply not their place to vent their ire against COVID restrictions at someone elses place of business, nor their right. They have the right to open their own establishment, and perform civil disobience there - or to do so on public lands in a manner where they are not spreading plague to bystanders. (ie: a protest at a DMV would not be proper) Refusing to mask in public when asked, is simply asserting their supposed right to spread disease and denying other people of the freedom to enjoy public venues with less risk of catching dangerous illness.

The fact that Omicron is more contagious than previous strains makes rules requiring certain levels of contagion mitigation on behalf of patrons even more reasonable, not less - the fact that said rules do not go far enough to eliminate possibility of spread notwithstanding.

There are no rights or freedoms at play here, aside from the rights and freedom of establishments to set and or enforce guidelines for behaviour for their patrons and have troublemakers and unruly people removed. Rights and freedoms go both ways, something most people on any 'side' of any issue tend to conveniently forget or ignore.

Though I would agree that making N95 level protection and boosters mandatory would be a better step. I would also agree that if the protestors opened their own establishment for anti-vax anti-maskers to congregate and the police came and arrested them in that context that it would be overreach, and their refusal to comply might qualify as legitimate civil disobedience.

Also, given that people are literally dying because they cannot get a bed at hospitals that are filled with unvaccinated COVID patients, setting some minimum requirements for contagion mitigation seems like a reasonable public policy. As long as the antivax crowd is provided with the means to perform mandatory public functions, such as govt licensing, mail, etc, there is no moral issue. As far as mask mandates, its merely a piece of clothing and has never been shown to harm the user. I can understand the philosophical reluctance of some people to get an injection, and agree that it is reasonable to defend the right of someone to reject doing so on the grounds of personal sovereinty over ones own body. But that does not imply they need be welcomed everywhere.

Masks and vaccinnation may not eliminate the spread of COVID, but they have been shown to reduce it. Better masks and more vaccinations reduce it more.


As an aside - of my biggest complaints about asshats like these people is their actions undercut the philosophical discussion about personal rights in the public sphere. They poison the well against defense of legitimate concerns regarding unvaccinated population, including people who are truly allergic, because I think most reasonable people who hear of their antics just see a bunch of asshats who haul their kids to a "lets go get arrested" party so they can loudly cry about how wronged they are when rightfully shown the door.

Just because someone isn't welcome somewhere doesn't make them a martyr, if the reason they are not welcome is based on what they do (or don't) not on what they are. And especially their actions incur additional risks to people other than themselves. If they chose to create their own spaces for unmasked, unvaccinated people to congregate among themselves - well, I'd still think they were being dipshits since they are encouraging spread of disease, but I'd still be more likely to defend their rights to do so despite the negative social consequences. By the same token, I believe that people who want less risk of disease should be free to establish their own spaces where some level of disease mitigation is required.

Last edited by Derid; 01/22/22 06:26 PM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)