

It’s all fun and games until people who didn’t want to be involved are forced to participate. Then it’s game over for the original participants.
Rifles creased by David from Lebanon Gun Shop.
Facebook auto-censored this post. Welcome to the culture war, part 3845xxx.
All in all, not a bad run for the gear just fitted to the shooter.
Wearing rifle-rated body armor seems like the most obviously beneficial daily practice. In addition to stopping bullets, it also protects from bruises and abrasions. It’s such a great idea that it should be mandatory!
Oh, wait…why not? Armor, even the best and the lightest, is still heavy, still restricts air circulation, still puts extra weight on the spine and the leg joints. It’s a great protective measure for certain environments but, even in wartime, many troops choose not to wear it. They win in mobility and endurance, or in the ability to carry extra ammunition for the same weight. People whose roles require wearing armor for years, especially if they had to run in it, usually suffer from back problems.
The same trade-offs apply to masks, both to the effective types like the one above and to the ineffective improvised craft projects. In theory, they restrict the transmission of viruses through restricting incoming or outgoing air flow. In practice, most of the do not work well. If you can still smell cigarette smoke or kitchen smells through the mask, it’s not working against viruses.
The trade-offs are the restricted airflow (reduced endurance, asthma attacks, heart attacks, other health problems) and the contamination of the inside surface with bacteria. That bacteria gets to live in a warm, moist environment perfect for reproduction. Increased acne, rosacea, other types of skin inflammations thrive under masks. The harm done by those side effects far outweighs even the theoretical benefits and is only slightly mitigated by non-compliance.
Free people should be able to make their own choices. Forcing masks, especially on people whose physical or mental health would be immediately harmed by them, should be considered a violent felony and stopped with appropriate measures. Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions, police enforce those edicts against the general population while giving the politicians a pass.
The interminable Internet battles over the details of politics are bound to fail when words don’t have the same meaning to all participants. Let’s go over the definitions:
Capitalism: A private individual has a surplus of tools. She lets others use those tools and pays them for the work they perform. The person hiring gets paid by the end customers. Example: a chef hires kitchen staff to prep ingredients with provided tools. That’s how any work gets done efficiently.
Communism: private individuals are prohibited from hiring others, but the state does much the same. In practice, this is significantly less efficient. In order to retain workers, they are effectively enslaved through a prohibition on emigration.
Socialism and its variations, like fascism (by its own definition): private individuals put up the funds and the know-how for business, but government directs the work to various degrees. Doesn’t work well in the long run either, since the individuals are risking their resources without having full control over the process.
What a lot of the US leftists want isn’t communism. They think that they want socialism. Even more than socialism, they want a welfare state. A welfare state can be largely capitalist, so long as a significant part of the proceeds is taken away through taxation. That doesn’t work well either, for two reasons. One, businesses become less competitive compared to their less taxed counterparts. Two, the welfare payments reduce the availability of workers, especially at the entry level. Without entry-level experience, fewer people are fit to work at higher levels, so the overall quality and quantity of producers relative to leeches decline.
Another feature of the welfare state is its tendency to meddle deeply in personal lives, using withholding of payments or benefits to modify behavior. Its proponents view it as a plus, thinking that their personal biases would get enforced for them. They are in for a disappointment.