I don't know who Eric Raymond is. What I was referring to, and just my opinion mind, is the impression from e.g. reading slashdot 15 years ago and other similar discussions. There are still elements today, when we get into age-related tracking, what apple is up to, censorship and privacy, etc, but I feel like there has been a swing in the mainstream viewpoint towards conformity away from individual rights.

It's frowned upon but the term "Long March Through the Institutions" may be applicable here.

There's libertarian as a religion, and practical libertarian. I'm the latter type: free markets are generally good, and people should generally be left alone to live their lives. But public health is a real thing that matters, and governments should step in to make sure externalities are charged to the people who caused them. I still think I'm a libertarian, but the religious type might disagree.

So only fanatics can disagree with you, is that how we should understand your setup?

Regardless, call me a fanatic, but a big part of individual rights, and I believe liberal democracy, not just libertarianism, is not to be subject to other people's panic. Whether that is a border wall or its enforced mobility and gathering restrictions, there are things the government should just not be allowed to do, because they allow for a tyranny of the majority.

There have been discussions, long before covid and largely precipitated by Trump, about how our system only works if we all generally follow some norms and don't abandon them in some kind of populist panic. I would argue this is what's happened here.

It's not acceptable that there are magic words (science says, "public health is a real thing that matters" as you say) that anyone can say that allows government to bypass civil liberties and impose stuff on people. Freedoms only actually exist if there is weight behind them and they can't just be discarded when someone shouts that lives are at stake.

For me it's not a question of disagreeing with any science about how covid is transmitted or vaccines or severity. People should behave sensibly about it and do what they can to limit the impact. Giving power to government just creates populist measures designed to cater to the masses and make them feel good (exactly like a border wall). This is not a power government should have. Call me a fanatic (religious type as you say)

All governments already have this power, and always have. You can argue that public health measures should not be the province of government, but that would be a pretty fringe position. You are essentially arguing that there is never a good reason for governments to infringe individual liberties. This is the religious libertarian I am talking about. I recognize it. I used to be one.

If you say instead that it is a legit function of government, but shouldn't be used in this case because on balance the risk is too small to sacrifice liberty for, that's certainly a discussion that could be had.

There is nothing libertarian about mass media convincing a herd of people to reject common sense mitigations for a respiratory pandemic. The FUD on this topic is as top-down as you can get, starting with an authoritarian conman whose most intelligent moment was brainstorming about injecting bleach.

As a libertarian I wholeheartedly reject this fig leaf of "freedom" touted by anti-maskers. Freedom is an ability to choose the right thing, not simply being a contrarian for contrarianism's sake. I think hard drugs should be legal, but I similarly wouldn't support people becoming junkies to spite society.