and mask use on private property wouldn't be mandatory either

Most businesses are on private property.

But need a public license to operate which could be revoked unilaterally by a government

It seems you're entirely oblivious to the fundament difference between discussing property ownership and whether a space is opened to the public.

Don’t assume ignorance on my part. Words have meaning, and I think the distinction is important. There is a fundamental difference between regulating public spaces and private businesses, and we should treat that with the seriousness it’s due.

For what it’s worth, I think a mask order is reasonable.

Assumptions not required. Spaces open to the public does not equal Public spaces. Public spaces are necessarily spaces open to the public but spaces open to the public are not necessarily public spaces.

Also, think of a man as underwear for your face. You can strut around your house naked all you want, but you can't walk down the street that way, and I'm fairly certain the grocery store can't unilaterally decide to be a nudist friendly operation either. If the Venn diagram of places where you can be legally naked and places you can not wear a mask were basically the same, the original commenter' version of "everywhere" would be sufficiently met.

> Government issued ID's are not mandatory

Perhaps not in the US, but it's mandated in pretty much across all western society.

And the US's refusal to adopt a standard ID system also leads to pseudo-ID schemes and proxies such as social security numbers and driver's license.

> nor is seatbelt use on any private property.

That's a great example.because no one is requiring anyone to wear facemasks while they are in their own home. The key take should be that the goal of these measures is to mitigate the risk that a specific threat poses to the public. You are required to wear a seatbelt while driving in public roads because the risk of being involved in a traffic accident is relatively high. You are required to wear a face mask in public because the risk of transmitting the virus is relatively high. Once you cease to be in public then the risk you pose to others is negligible.

It's not in the UK, we have a serious political taboo against what's seen as a "papers please" kind of authoritarianism. Tony Blair tried to introduce mandatory ID cards and even with his massive majority it was politically impossible.

The ironic thing is that despite this widespread attitude, we have genuinely scary levels of mass surveillance.

> And the US's refusal to adopt a standard ID system

We do have a standardized ID system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act

It's not mandatory

It is if you want to fly, starting next year (was supposed to be this year but was delayed).