Hacker News Reader

> Your personal health is none of the government's business.

In theory, maybe. But the government's main business in practice seems to be the continuation of its (government's) existence, and having somewhat healthy population, and having population at all, for that matter, really helps -- especially if the measures intended to improve the public health/safety don't really cost the government much if anything.

> In a free market, it's in the interest of the manufacturers to take care of their customers

[Citation needed]. Anyway, the car market is not free: every car manufacturer has non-infinitesimal market share, and that opens the possibility of all kinds of interesting market manipulations.

Perhaps start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

The market-based process of product optimization you have outlined has many holes -- in this case, market failures including cartel behavior and incomplete information.

The thing that's surprising is that despite the many flaws of the pure laissez-faire approach, seen repeatedly, people trot it out as if it's still fresh, in wonderment that it hasn't been tried hard enough.

Because "free market solutions adoption" doesn't happen.

We live in a society, and there are some amount of beliefs shared by large groups within that society(In this case, "wearing a seatbelt isn't a personal choice, because not wearing one and getting into an accident taxes resources from others and therefor extends beyond "I should get to do whatever I want"). The second you put a formal sate into place, you're giving up freedom in exchange for codification of social beliefs.

The problem is that not everyone agrees on these social beliefs. Pick literally any topic, and someone says "no, that's wrong". So no matter what laws you make, someone always disagrees with them. You now need ways to enforce those beliefs, and penalties are easier than rewards (because you need a way to fund/create rewards and that requires more resources than a penalty which often involves taking resources from those involved).

The point is, without enforcement there will always be a group that doesn't do the thing everyone else wants.

(Side note: your hebrew law example is pointedly NOT how US tort law works, and I think a lot of people are thankful for that. We all know bulls, even those without a history of goring, CAN gore someone to death, and if you don't do everything in your power to prevent that, you're liable.)

That's a strange quote to use as support for keeping government out of personal health.

> "If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death... But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death"

Seems to me a person who catches the virus and spreads it thereby killing others is analogous to the bull owner who lets their known violent bull kill others". Unless you're saying anti-vaxers don't believe the virus kills anyone period? It seems like the parable is saying "you are responsible for how you and your actions affect others unless you can say you didn't know any better but once you do know better you're responsible"

Who said anything about a virus?