Hacker News Reader

Comment by pattrn | Hacker News Reader

Can't read it because of the paywall. Either way, I'm one of those Americans that wants to be free to do whatever I want that doesn't directly harm other people, including being stupid. Most likely I won't intentionally choose that, and hopefully I haven't accidentally chosen that, but I vehemently oppose being forced one way or the other by the government.

View on HN

>that doesn't directly harm other people

This side-steps the entire conversation. Surely you agree that laws and orders are intended to prevent harm. You can and should debate whether a particular example is practical and just, but just saying "I want to be free" and "the government can't force me to do anything" is generalized to the point of having no value aside from provoking people and encouraging anger.

There are examples that don't side-step the conversation.

Should it be required to wear a helmet when you are riding a motorcycle, for example? That's a pretty direct example that bifurcates freedom-loving libertarians from other folk.

Is indirect harm okay? A lot of anti-maskers can't seem to grasp the concept that they aren't just putting their own lives at risk. The infection and death rates show how much damage this mentality can have on a country.

In a broad sense indirect harm is OK. There are many activities that result in indirect harm. The argument about which should be banned should focus on the amount of harm and the degree of restriction required to be placed upon people's freedoms to reduce the harm.

If you are not free to be stupid you are not free to be smart either.

No, that's as patently absurd a statement as "if you are not free to break the law, you are not free to obey it either."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com