Hacker News Reader

Comment by elliekelly | Hacker News Reader

The individual rights argument is not pretty strong. Here’s a partial list of things I did today for the sake of my neighbors/community that are also government mandated:

- Wore a shirt

- Turned on my headlights and used my turn signals

- Held on to my empty coffee cup until I got to a trash can when I could have just dropped it on the ground

- Kept my dog on a leash and picked up his poop

- Parked in a parking spot instead of conveniently stopping my car in the middle of traffic directly in front of the grocery store door

I’m sure there are plenty others. Being a member of society comes with a lot of privileges and a handful of obligations but it only works if we all do our part. No freeloaders, right?

Edit: An extra word

View on HN

> - Wore on a shirt

Where do you live where this is government mandated?

I’m a woman so my nipples are criminalized in most of the United States.

That's terrible. I'm glad that this is not the case here in Canada. It does make no sense whatsoever for it to be like this in the US. I agree with your other examples, but this one is clearly unjust and should change.

In many parts of the U.S., it's not actually illegal for women to be topless, they just don't. It is often a requirement for a liquor license, however. For example, where I live in Austin, Texas, state law does not prohibit a woman being topless, and Texas is not generally among the most liberal of states.

Proactively mitigating the abuses that would emerge from a state that doesn't need to encourage more low paying jobs that have a very high rate of sex trafficking? At least the Bud Light at the strip club isn't $12 like that place I went in Las Vegas.

Just wanted to add that it's legal for women to be topless in NYC. There's even a celebration day for it at the end of August.

It's legal statewide and specifically because it would be unfair for men to have the exclusive privilege.

If you’re a woman this might be considered indecent exposure in many parts of the US unless you’re at a beach or in a resort town.

In stores pretty much anywhere.

That's not government mandated.

But the anti-maskers insist on having the right to not wear a mask in stores as well when the business has clearly marked masks are required and staff ask them to leave.

If the anti-maskers respected the rights of others around them as much as they insist on others respecting their rights, this would be nearly a non-issue.

I had assumed it was state laws for ostensible health reasons. But it turns out to have sort of an interesting history and, as you say, apparently isn't legally mandated in any state according to this article: https://people.howstuffworks.com/where-did-shirt-shoes-requi...

>- Wore a shirt

I still insist you wear chaps on top of pants or your short trousers. Pants are fashion, chaps protect.

These are objective concessions. Most of these concessions took tens (or thousands) of years to become objective.

In the case of masks, you have a big change in human tradition. There are very few societies that have ever required all people to wear masks all the time. I can't think of any examples. A small handful of modern societies require it for specific subgroups, but that's it.

Generally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the case of masks, I want to see very strong evidence that masks are very necessary, and other approaches wouldn't have similar or better results with lower change to human tradition. So far, I haven't seen that at all. The scientific evidence that masks are effective or necessary is weak. Alternate approaches (eg. wearing a mask if you're symptomatic, staying at home if you're symptomatic) may be just as effective.

The examples you cite have roots in human tradition, and have been established for many years, mostly with strong evidence.

In the case of seatbelts, you have a big change in human tradition. There are very few societies that have ever required all people to wear seatbelts all the time. I can't think of any examples. A small handful of modern societies require it for specific subgroups, but that's it. Generally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the case of seatbelts, I want to see very strong evidence that seatbelts are very necessary, and other approaches wouldn't have similar or better results with lower change to human tradition. So far, I haven't seen that at all. The scientific evidence that seatbelts are effective or necessary is weak. Alternate approaches (eg. improved driver training) may be just as effective. The examples you cite have roots in human tradition, and have been established for many years, mostly with strong evidence.

You still have freedom loving individuals in places like New Hampshire who embrace beltless freedom, or even more stupidly riding motorcycles without helmets.

At least in those cases, that “freedom” usually kills only them when things go wrong.

Well, seatbelts aren't the be-all, end-all, either... And people have indeed complained about them when they were mandated. So, it's not like "one could say the same thing about seatbelts, so look how absurd it is". Someone else might easily reply "my life, my choice" about wearing one (same as for drinking, smoking, over-eating, etc).

But even so, we can consider seatbelts as a necessary wearable/accessory for car use, which is also a recent development (cars and driving). Masks are different in that they affect people going on about doing things people did for millenia without requiring a mask.

https://youtu.be/9_Af8w2SAT4

What harm will befall people who see my breasts and what strong scientific evidence can you provide to substantiate that theoretical harm?

Usually the root of the argument boils down to your exposed breasts will titillate men and cause them to act out of the lust in their heart. If you dig, you’ll often find statement to that effect made by the legislators or lobbyists responsible for laws against exposure of breasts.

It contrasts with professed love of freedom, but humans are always creatures of paradox.

Then we should also ban advertising, because it causes people to act out of envy in their heart.

Doesn't have to be "scientificaly substantiated" harm.

Killing someone is not a scientifically substantiated harm either. Of course we harm the other person's health (that's objective), but that in itself is only bad in the sense that "life is good" and "we should respect life / not kill". And that is not a scientific argument but a moral one. The universe doesn't care either way.

What does "scientifically substantiated" mean to you?

The same thing anybody would understand by the term. Did something gave you a different impression?

That there's a scientific proof that harm is being done by an action.

But harm is a moral term, and science is not about moral judgements. It can help inform them, but the guidelines for what is "harm" or "good" come from morality ultimately.

E.g. what is "good for society" is based on a value judgement / decision by said society based on its goals, what it wants to conserve or change, etc.

Science can tell you that X technique is more productive for example. But whether "more productivity" is desired is a matter of social values/priorities, not a scientific matter.

To be honest that topic people can debate. Men are allowed to walk around without a shirt. Women breastfeed in public pretty frequently.

There is however a long history and tradition of humans wearing clothing to cover their genitals. Even very primitive societies have this norm, and it has pretty obvious reasons behind it.

United States, 1918.

Instead of projecting arrogant puffery, why don’t you think about the potential consequences of prioritizing your comfort and self aggrandizement to people whose lives are put in danger.

I have a neighbor who unknowingly was infected early on and likely infected several of her elderly clients, most of whom are now dead. She is devastated... think about how you will feel if you did the same thing, without the innocence of being ignorant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com