@ibanezfreak4:
Hey there, I realize you're already getting replies from others, but I also come from a reflexively-libertarian kind of perspective. Since you're touching on some of my own favorite themes, I hope you don't mind if I offer a thought or two?
And the "unethical" or "down-right evil" portion of your question is in response to you[r] same statement of mandatory. There are guidelines, recommendations, and business-by-business preference. To continue to operate in a dictator-like manor [sic] telling your constituents that you have to do something is the opposite of liberty.
Certainly you're correct that a state-government official issuing guidelines or recommendations is no threat to liberty and ought generally to be preferred over mandates.
But, it's also true that branches of the government do have their proper roles to play, delegated to them by the people whom they serve. It isn't necessarily the case that, when an official issues a mandate, he is operating "in a dictator-like manner." He may merely be exercising a role delegated to him by the people of that state. So it seems to me that the first question we have to ask is, "Does the constitution of State X delegate authority to Governor Y to issue public-health mandates (e.g. mask-wearing, social distancing) in the event of pandemics?" If that authority has
not been delegated to him, then his exercise of that authority is a
usurpation.
It occurs to me that different states have different constitutions, and whereas in some states such authority may be delegated to the governor, others might have a surgeon-general figure fulfilling that role (although still within the executive); still others might require some kind of involvement from the legislature; and still others might not have ever bothered adding such a plank to their constitution. In the latter case, no government official would have mandate authority, and the governor would have to rely on the "bully pulpit."
So our first step should be to ask whether the person issuing the mandate is a usurper or not. That's gonna depend on individual state constitutions and laws, and I frankly am mostly ignorant about my own state, and entirely ignorant about others.
Secondly, I don't think every usurper -- although usurpation is a very bad thing -- qualifies as
dictator-like. It depends on
which powers are being usurped from the people.
I realize that the complaint about masks is premised on the notion that masks are (or may be) mere "security theater" or a form of political "tribalism" rather than something with real public-health benefit. (After all, the "public experts" back in January-March claimed loudly that they
weren't effective...though I admit I myself thought they were probably wrong, or lying, at the time.) Okay: Let's presume (for the sake of argument!) that mask-wearing
is ineffective and that you have
adequate reason to be confident about that. Even so, a mandate to wear a mask (while it would be an
obnoxious mandate, given the presumption of known ineffectiveness) would not, I think, be the
kind of usurpation I'd expect from a dictator.
I'd expect a dictator to usurp power that...
(a.) compelled speech or silence on debatable topics, either by the dictator's government or via privately-owned proxies supporting him;
(b.) limited my right to self-defense in the gravest extreme (including right to owning/bear the tools thereof, typically firearms);
(c.) prohibited me from making reasonable choices in the education of my children, or enforced propagandizing of them;
(d.) punished me for failure to enthusiastically support the dictator's political or cultural agenda, either directly through fines or imprisonment, or indirectly through job loss, denial of professional certifications, etc.;
(e.) confiscated property without any recourse for "redress of grievances";
(f.) prohibited my right of (peaceable!) assembly, especially in solidarity with persons who opposed the dictator's agenda, whether for protest purposes or other purposes;
..., etc.
Mask-wearing looks pretty piddly, alongside the rest of that list.
So while a state governor in one state, where the governorship included the power to mandate masks, might be merely exercising proper authority by doing so, a governor in another state, where that power was not constitutionally delegated might be a usurper if he tried exercising it anyway. But in either case,
that alone just wouldn't seem dictatorial to me.
Again, I'm coming at this as someone with libertarian leanings, so I hope I'm coming across as a friendly voice here. I just think the details of this particular example don't hold up as being dictator-like. And in many states, I don't even suppose it's a usurpation (unless some lawyer in that state can show that it is).
At this point we have two choices: liberty or authority. Based on my response I think you can see which spectrum I lean more towards.
With you on that one. I'm just cautioning that some exercises of authority are entirely legitimate, and depending on your state and its constitution, this could very well be one such.