Hacker News Reader

Comment by CosmicSteve | Hacker News Reader

We can do much better? What the hell does that mean? More drug prohibition? Yeah, that's been working out just peachy.

Portugal's decriminalization of all drugs has led to a sharp drop across the board in drug usage and an increase in effective rehabilitative outcomes.

View on HN

I believe that we should expect responsible behavior from adults. Only this way a society can also develop responsibility. By prohibiting everything that is dangerous (or just considered as such) humans never actually get a chance to grow up.

It's sort of a balancing act between building safety rails so that people don't accidentally fall off cliffs while hiking while also allowing people the agency to free climb El Cap if they so choose...

You totally make a valid point. But I would literally remove all those safety rails. People just have to keep a safe distance from the edge of the cliff.

Isn't it likely that the rails were put in place as a response to people not keeping a safe distance from the edge of the cliff?

I often see this assumption that regulations appear from thin air as a way to keep people down. It seems more possible that they primarily come as a result of witnessing the reality of what happens with no regulations.

I think the prevalent assumption on HN is that every regulation can be traced back to some accident or mistake.

It is impossible to put safety rails everywhere (both literally and metaphorically). Some people will try to make selfies on the edge and fall to their death - very tragic - but why do I have to keep those people alive with my tax payments or even be annoyed from the sight of a rail in the middle of nature.

I also think that most accidents happen from overtrusting a safety gear - safety rails would sometimes fail. Typical example is the safety belt in cars - people suddenly drove faster. Or with helmets - rugby is less physically harmful than American football due to less protection. The examples refer to the mindset, though - of course I use safety belts but I also don't get too close to the edge of a cliff.

==I think the prevalent assumption on HN is that every regulation can be traced back to some accident or mistake.==

My experience on HN is quite the opposite, but that is besides the point.

==why do I have to keep those people alive with my tax payments or even be annoyed from the sight of a rail in the middle of nature.==

This is libertarian ideology in the real-world. Your argument is that your annoyance is as valuable or more valuable than someone else's potential death. In a civilized/democratic society, we have created a governmental system to make these decisions for us and to the betterment of the country at large, not just you. Stop lights are a regulation and annoyance to my car driving, if I stopped heeding them, do you think that makes society better or worse off?

==I also think that most accidents happen from overtrusting a safety gear==

Based on what? Do you have any evidence or just your personal observation/assumption?

It seems like you've lost the forest from the trees here. Specifically on safety belts, they save many more lives than they could ever cost as evidenced by empirical research:

==Seat belts dramatically reduce risk of death and serious injury. Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%.==

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/index.h...

Well, I am not a Libertarian. I am for regulation in many cases. The difference between a safety rail and traffic lights are this. When I approach an intersection then my health depends more the prudence of the car's driver also approaching the intersection and crossing my path. So putting traffic lights people at least know who can drive and who should stop. But a cliff is an obvious threat. There is nothing insidious about it. If that cliff would be close to an elementary school - then I would be for safety rails, though. Because children are not responsible and hence have to be protected from them self.

Regarding safety belts - I think you didn't get my point. I didn't say they aren't saving lives. I said that back when they didn't exist people drove more careful. With all those protection in place in cars - many people drive more reckless having those protections in mind.

==But a cliff is an obvious threat.==

But there are also other people around and animals and high wind speeds and any number of other factors that impact safety. I bet you still follow stop lights when nobody is coming the other way.

==Because children are not responsible and hence have to be protected from them self.==

This is an argument for putting rails on cliffs, as children are not barred from cliffs. Seems like you have talked yourself into a pretzel.

==I said that back when they didn't exist people drove more careful. With all those protection in place in cars - many people drive more reckless having those protections in mind. ==

I get the point, people may drive more recklessly because they feel protected by the seatbelt. I would say that all regulations are a cost-benefit equation. In the case of seatbelts, the benefit of more people living is larger than the cost of lost freedom.

Portugal's decriminalization is not the same as legalization; it could itself be viewed as "doing better". I personally am for legalization, but in terms of reducing consumption, it might be more effective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com