We could carve out exceptions for people in those circumstances — and the current statute does make medical and holiday exceptions — but why should we?

Why should prohibition be the default position? In a free society, the default position should be the one that upholds individual liberty — and government should need a good reason to carve out an exception.

After all, in 99 cases out of 100 a mask doesn’t hurt anybody. The law should not prohibit things that do nobody any harm.

But what about the hundredth case? Easy. There’s no blanket prohibition against using a firearm, but the law imposes additional penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a felony. We could treat masks the same way.

True, sometimes cases might arise in which mask-wearing makes work harder for the police. If the police have surveillance video of a riot, for instance, identifying the culprits is easier if none of them is wearing a mask. But this is an unusual circumstance, and the law ought to be written for the norms, not the exceptions.