Hacker News Reader

Comment by mixmastamyk | Hacker News Reader

Oh definitely we can, and society often does and should limit the autonomy of individuals for the greater good, e.g.: Driving is a "privilege" not a right. You may be placed in a conservatorship or similar if not capable of taking care of yourself. Your right to throw punches ends at other people's noses. Folks with dementia often have mobility limits placed on them.

Either these folks are deemed competent or they are not.

Also, you've used the word violence here to give the appearance that this is the same as assault, but it not. It is humane care for those who need it.

View on HN

> does and should limit the autonomy of individuals for the greater good

No, it's to prevent the person from doing harm to others, not "for the greater good" or else you've entered into fascist territory. It has nothing to do with competence either but harm reduction. That's why someone can't drive without a license because they would be at a high risk of hurting others (you can drive on your own property.) It's self-defense.

> Also, you've used the word violence here

I used the word violence because it's literally violence. It has nothing to do with connotation, the definition of a state is the monopoly on violence over a particular territory; so wielding the state to force people to do things is nothing less than using violence or the threat of violence. This isn't remotely controversial.

> the definition of a state is the monopoly on violence over a particular territory

As a non-US reader, I have never encountered this definition where I live. I understand what is meant, but it seems very much like a fear inducing frame; state = violence.

Maybe this is because where I live we have a different relationship with our government and law enforcement than the U.S., but to me it’s not at all “not remotely controversial”, at least in the way it’s phrased.

It's the standard political science definition globally, originally from Max Weber (a founder of sociology) but obviously going back to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke (two of the founding theorists of liberalism.) Open any textbook or encyclopedia, even dictionary.

Yes, everyone getting the help they need is violence. Utopian (dystopian) ideals fall apart in the real world however. Note the link I posted above, would you raise a family in a place that enabled this atmosphere.

Now, if you are crazy and live on a deserted island it’s not a problem. On my doorstep is another story; the other 98% of us have a right to peace that overrides yours. We live in society and lose a few rights, the bargain is that we get more in return than we lost. The ill could be free to try to survive on their own if they don’t want to submit, but again we know they are not competent to make the decision by definition.

No, violence is violence.

The instigator here is clear. With your logic, rule of law would cease to exist. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't enjoy living in that world, even if you think you might.

Your example of driving privilege is inapt. My hypothetical privilege to drive is not rejected based on my ability to take care of myself. It is rejected on my ability to take care of others around me.

I think that's exactly the point the parent comment was making: that, as with driving, an individual who is unable to take the wellbeing of others around them into account can/should have their privilege of individual autonomy restricted.

Obviously there's a difference between defecating on the sidewalk and recklessly injuring someone with a car, so the question becomes how we define harm.

Homeless people generally wouldn't defecate on the sidewalk if they had bathrooms to use, so even that point doesn't stand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com