Hacker News Reader

Comment by LordKano | Hacker News Reader

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things

I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things. To illustrate, most of our laws are "Thou shall not..." versus "Thou must..." to punish "bad" behavior instead of compel "good" behavior.

I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there.

Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice.

Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object.

Because a waiver process implies that it's the government's choice and not the individual's.

In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision

Can the state compel everyone to be a vegan unless they can show proof of a medical condition that would make it unworkable?

View on HN

Compelling to do good things and compelling to prevent bad things are a duality. They're equivalent in their effects, and you can easily transform one to the other. Punishing people for doing wrong is compelling them to receive a punishment deemed good. "Thou must go to jail."

"Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice."

That's a nice slogan, but it isn't actually realized anywhere. It's always your choice when there's a clear advantage -- that is, when the state doesn't "know best" about your body. And it absolutely reserves the right control your body for the greater good.

"Can the state compel everyone to be a vegan unless they can show proof of a medical condition that would make it unworkable?"

They can if there is good evidence to show a vegan diet is strictly superior to all others.

So for a more appropriate example, it can compel you to use a seatbelt in an automobile, because there are real social costs to not doing so. It doesn't matter if you want to take a risk, once you go to the hospital, you are utilizing a public resource. And the state has a responsibility to ensure those resources are available and used efficiently, which means preventing unnecessary emergencies. (Like what would occur if you contracted something like polio.)

And the state has a responsibility to ensure those resources are available and used efficiently

Can the state be sued for failing to fulfill that responsibility?

The state may well have an interest in doing that but it does not have that responsibility.

The reason we have states is to manage public resources, including the people who make up the state.

But really, you might sue them, but that's not the only way to fix that kind of problem. You could also elect a new government, or create laws or regulations to prevent mismanagement, or usurp the government. Suing is only one way to interact with a government that makes mistakes, and it's certainly not a necessary mechanism for doing so.

> That's a nice slogan, but it isn't actually realized anywhere. It's always your choice when there's a clear advantage -- that is, when the state doesn't "know best" about your body. And it absolutely reserves the right control your body for the greater good.

That's true legally, and in theory, but if someone tries to medicate me without my permission I'll leave the country. I can't trust the government with my health given its track record on drugs, the tuskegee experiment, the whole nasty eugenics business, the miserable mess that is psychiatric drugs, and doctor assisted suicide laws, and visitation/commitment rights. It's extremely clear the government does not have my health in its sights but is rather driven by a paternalistic morality supporting existing social and industrial entities. Even paternalistic forces must earn respect before the subordinate cooperates.

NOTE: I was on Risperdal (risperidone) for two years. It made me lactate painfully (I'm male) and I couldn't work well. My thoughts were scattered. I never should have been prescribed it; the positive effects of the drugs I was taking was mostly from the SSRI stabilizing my emotions. Even that is hard to justify given the subtle nature of the perceptual change, its low effect on my actual depression, and the large physical side effects.

Well, one might agree with you were they able to distinguish between paranoia and an actual problem. I highly suspect that your experiences with that drug weren't a result of a government mandate that you could not exclude yourself from. An adverse reaction to medication is exactly the kind of information that is needed to circumvent its use. Nobody is arguing against that.

No, but it's a sign that we need drug reform that it was on the market at all. If they can't even validate the psychiatric drugs we're giving to people, how can we expect them to make sweeping decisions for an entire population? It's not paranoia at that scale, it's just kicking the tires to see if our government actually has the wherewithal to make these kinds of decisions. It seems extremely obvious to me they don't, and we've only seen positive change on this front in the last ~seven years at the NIH, FDA, and DEA in terms of recognizing and resolving these past issues.

And it's not so much that there was a mandate to prescribe risperidone, more that they prescribed me a very, very shitty medication when I was a ward of the state. It's their responsibility to ensure the doctors and RNs have accurate, up to date knowledge of the medication they're educated to prescribe by the FDA. IMHO they failed with risperidone.

How about "Thou shalt not spread deadly diseases by leaving yourself unvaccinated", by analogy to "Thou shalt not spread deadly diseases by selling tained food" or "Thou shalt not spread deadly diseases by leaving your hair out when you're working in a restaurant's kitchen"?

By leaving yourself unvaccinated, you are bearing the risks of contamination. The risks that someone else takes leaving themselves unvaccinated is up to them.

There are people who can't be vaccinated, and instead depend on everybody near them being vaccinated so the disease can't spread to them, so leaving yourself unvaccinated is not a risk only to yourself. I, for example, have a family history that means I can't take the usual meningitis vaccine. I am depending on the people around me getting vaccinated, and if they don't, they push to me a risk of becoming infected, exactly like someone who doesn't wash their hands after using the restroom won't make themselves any sicker but can infect me. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

Now, imagine if due to the incompetence or corruption of government and pharmaceutical companies, you were forced to be vaccinated with a meningitis vaccine anyway (or risk punishment), even though you and your doctor protests there will be dangerous side effects. That's a situation that will happen to some if people are forced to vaccinate. They may or may not be right about the side effects, but to them, it will feel exactly like as if you yourself was forced to take the meningitis vaccine even though you feel very sure it will not be in your best interests. It's probably worth forcing that situation on everyone around you for your own family's wellbeing - but I think it's still worth pointing out the suffering this will cause others.

That suffering is caused by ignorance, not a vaccine.

Except that herd immunity is a thing.

That's not how vaccination works. Even if I get all my vaccines, there is a chance one of them didn't work for me. Then when people start getting sick and spreading it because not enough of us are vaccinated, so do I.

They work by having the vast majority of people not carriers so that the few that don't end up protected directly are still protected.

This is sorta like having shitty brakes and tires. Sure you're the person most likely affected but there's a good chance your accident is going to mean harming someone that does have good brakes and tires.

Adding conditions to commercial activity isn't the same thing as imposing conditions on existing.

"Thou shalt not do anything that could cause a huge fire". "Thou shalt not build buildings that could fall down in an earthquake". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safety#List_of_some_typic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_code

I'd argue that the whole purpose of a state is to shift game theoretic weights of decisions of individuals in a way that benefits the overall population. So we don't fall into certain instances of the "tragedy of the commons" [1].

Vaccination is a good example. As an individual there is a really small risk in not vaccination if everybody else do otherwise (the disease can't spread). If there is no regulation then the Nash equilibrium will be at a not desirable point, where a certain percentage of people still don't vaccinate and the disease never dies out. If there is a regulation it can increase the cost of not vaccinating (most easily you pay a high amount of fine and you still have to vaccinate) and shifts the Nash equilibrium to a more effective point.

tl;dr: you don't vaccinate only for yourself and your kids, you vaccinate for everybody stopping the spreading of the disease.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

edit: Note that making vaccination mandatory is not the only (but IMHO an effective) way to motivate vaccination. The state can reward people who take vaccination.

I can't/shouldn't take the flu vaccine... it will drastically the risk (around 5% without flu shot) that I'll have Guillain-Barre again. I'm almost done paying the hospital bills from 5 years ago, when it happened... insanely expensive treatment, even if you have insurance that caps at half a million.

Well of course there should be exceptions for situations like yours.

> Can the state compel everyone to be a vegan unless they can show proof of a medical condition that would make it unworkable?

If not being a vegan had a negative effect on the health and safety of the people around you, then yes, they could and should do exactly that.

The primary purpose of the state, (unite states) is the protection of peoples liberty and property.

> Can the state compel everyone to be a vegan unless they can show proof of a medical condition that would make it unworkable?

Well, they can apparently compel everyone to give up eating horsemeat. If banning beef was politically viable, perhaps they could do that too.

Is the consumption of horse meat forbidden by law or are they using the regulatory power of the USDA to prevent the commercial slaughter of horses?

You're attempting to draw too fine a line here. It's not legal to sell meat for human consumption without USDA regulation.

I don't see it that way.

For example, I could make my own wine and beer at home, for my own personal use but I can't sell it without accepting government oversight.

Oh, I see, you were making a smaller point than I thought originally, my misunderstanding. Since I hunt and own livestock, I regularly consume meat that didn't go through FDA inspection. My impression is that is a fairly rare thing.

How many people would fly on a regular basis if the state outlawed commercial manufacture of airplanes?

Related noted. If you eat at Jack in the Box, you're eating quite a bit of Kangaroo meat. Their meat packing facilities are nauseating.

> Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice.

Except that it's not your body.

If you don't get vaccinated, and you get sick, then you infect everyone else. You don't have the right to choose to infect other people.

Vaccination needs to be mandatory, and if the state has to send agents to burst into people's homes, tie people down, and forcibly administer the vaccinations, then I'm all for it.

I generally agree with LordKano, and in the same positions of having been vaccinated myself and my kids. At the same time I really don't like state-mandated vaccines. For philosophical reasons first of all ("Your body, your choice"). But also for practical, as it presents a great possibility of abuse; as an example impagine corrupt officials mandating unnecessary vaccination of BigPharma's profit.

> If you don't get vaccinated, and you get sick, then you infect everyone else. You don't have the right to choose to infect other people.

I would NOT be against public schools mandating vaccines in order for children to attend school. Same for places of employment.

> it presents a great possibility of abuse;

I appreciate your concern, but this is a slippery slope fallacy. It's highly unlikely it would be abused without knowledge, because we currently have a net-good policy that is being "debated" at all levels today. I can't imagine a net-neutral or net-evil policy would slip by undetected.

Slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy. In fact, since this is a political (and more importantly, rhetorical) debate, slippery slope isn't a fallacy at all. It is an argument, carrying some weight or none at all, depending on how it is presented. In light of an article that is precisely about how "Big Pharma" overprescribed drugs to people who didn't need them, suggesting that allowing the government to enforce prescriptions will lead to more corruption and overprescription, this argument should hold a lot of weight.

More generally: Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. It, along with many of it's brothers [1], do nothing to prove a point in a logical debate. They do no represent MUSTs, they represent SHOULD, MAY, and OPTIONAL [2]. These are rhetorical devices that you should use when you are feeling out the scope of the problem and advocating for policy in a political debate. And it can be relevant to call them by name, but dismissing an argument because you can name it is actually illogical.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fal... [2] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Point taken. I should not have used that rhetorical device. Thanks for the correction.

I'm reminded of Typhoid Mary. "You can't tell me I'm not allowed to be a cook!"

Except that it's not your body.

Of course it is. Do you feel the pain when I get stuck by a needle?

If you don't get vaccinated, and you get sick, then you infect everyone else.

This is a possibility. Life is risk.

You don't have the right to choose to infect other people.

That is true. They also have the right to decide for themselves if they want to be vaccinated. As I said, I was vaccinated and I had my children vaccinated. I hope that everyone does. I am opposed to using the coercive force of government to make them do it.

Vaccination needs to be mandatory, and if the state has to send agents to burst into people's homes, tie people down, and forcibly administer the vaccinations, then I'm all for it.

Should the state be willing to kill people in order to administer vaccines to keep them from getting sick and dying?

This guy is on the right track. Who downvoted this?

> Can the state compel everyone to be a vegan unless they can show proof of a medical condition that would make it unworkable?

Consider that the state does compel you not to kill humans. If non-humans were accorded similar rights (which is a separate discussion) then yes, they most certainly could.

EDIT: wording

The state does no such thing.

The state regulates the killing of humans. If you forcibly enter my home with a perceived intent to harm me or my family and without any right to do so, I will kill you and never run afoul of my state's laws.

If you attack me and I find myself in fear of death or grave injury, I will kill you and never run afoul of my state's laws.

"I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things."

Such as put other people in danger?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com