Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickpp | Hacker News Reader

> People need to be protected from themselves sometimes.

Said every dictator, ever. Also:

  "It's for your own good"
  "Without me, others would take advantage of you"
  "I am protecting you"
  "I know better than you what you need"

View on HN

But even countries which aren’t under dictatorship have laws to protect people against themselves. Even those who are on top of the list of most democratic countries.

And while some of those laws are OK, they should ALL be scraped for the principle that:

"Nobody knows better than me what is better for myself and mine."

It's not always true (see vaccination or smoking) but the alternative is much worse and in much more cases.

> "Nobody knows better than me what is better for myself and mine."

Smokers and anti-vaccination also use the same argument. Even though their actions are also dangerous to other people(kids). I am sure they felt oppressed when public smoking was banned. Smokers will tell you that smoking isn’t different to dangerous sports or unsafe sex. Yet, dangerous sports/unsafe sex isn’t banned.

The argument against banning smoking in public is that it forces others to inhale the smoke against their will simply by sharing space, not that the person doing the smoking has no right to put it into themselves. In a sense, it is an anti-pollution law.

You libertarians.

Please address their point about antivaxxers.

A libertarian might argue that that falls under restricting an individual's right to harm others. They might believe that individuals don't have the right to increase the risk to people who can't vaccinate for heath reasons, and they might believe that parents don't have the right to harm their children by depriving them of their health.

I agree with that. But I also think there is other reason for anti-pollution laws, which is in addition to saving people, also saving the Earth, too, which is also important (independently of if the people are saved; some people want to do so for the people but I think that is only a part of it).

And if someone does have a hermetically sealed room no smoke will escape from, I suppose that is OK, so shouldn't be illegal except forcing someone to do against their will.

This is completely different. Smokers and anti-vaxxers are harming the public in a significant way. I wouldn't care for smokers if they could only do it in a hermetically sealed room where no smoke escapes from. Neither would I care for anti-vaxxers who are completely segregated from society so they don't hurt herd immunity.

Maybe we shouldn't protect people from themselves, but we should definitely protect people from the consequences it others disastrous mistakes. I don't need my idiot neighbors playing with fireworks.

Agreed. But the OP was talking about a freely consented exchange with no repercussions on others.

Ah, yes, the mathematical "spherical cow".

That’s why I said sometimes. It isn’t all the time that you need to protect people but kids needs to be protected. People who are mentally ill must be protected from themselves. In some cases, even forcefully put them in mental hospitals. There is always a grey area.

Laws should not protect people from themself (education should do that instead). It can protect people and animals and trees from some bad stuff some people are doing (e.g. fireworks, as message 21620305 mentions), while trying to not be so restrictive. I think even mentally ill people should not be protected from themself (unless the condition is temporary).

In an attempt be polite and constructive: reaching for dictatorships as a counter example feels extreme.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com