Hacker News Reader

> an enormous amount of empirical data underscores the risk to an individual's health posed by the consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, it can be argued that a parent allowing their children to smoke could potentially amount to child endangerment or abuse, depending on the context.

1. Would you agree that reasonable people exist who, right or wrong, believe that the psychological toll of SM on children, while not in the same universe as the physical toll of cigarettes, still manages to cross the line of "this is sufficiently harmful that the government must make parenting decisions"?

2. Are you open to the possibility that, in a hypothetical future with sufficient empirical data, those beliefs might be shown to be accurate?

I don't have children / a horse in this race, I'm more exploring your position about the role of government.

1. I don't care what people believe. Human history is full of people who moved to restrict the rights of others because of their beliefs. Beliefs are irrelevant to me.

2. I'm open to the possibility that data could show this, but any proposed legislation would have to be weighed against fundamental human rights. There are a lot of "risky" activities that people, including children, can enter into and we don't legislate against that because people have the right (legally and morally IMO) to commit suicide by any means of their choosing.

Point taken on the fact that beliefs are subservient to data. But society is built on at least some shared beliefs. For example, based on your responses you may have some belief that there are certain inalienable rights endowed by nature/God/whatever. That's a shared belief that isn't necessarily rooted in data. We can't just hand-wave away the idea that some beliefs are necessary for society to function. We can, however, debate which beliefs need to be shared for society to function in a particular way.

> For example, based on your responses you may have some belief that there are certain inalienable rights endowed by nature/God/whatever.

I don't want to get into a philosophical debate here, but you can absolutely demonstrate that there are inalienable rights. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any diety, but rights derive directly from your nature as a human being. That nature being what your requirements for survival are.

As a human you have the capacity to reason and this is your primary tool for survival. That's not a belief, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. As humans we can't fly, we can't run fast, we aren't particularly strong, we don't have venom ... but we can think rationally.

We also have material requirements. We must breathe, we must sleep, we must protect our body from the elements, we have temperature requirements, we are susceptible to viruses, we require nourishment etc.

The combination of our ability to reason with our material requirements for survival mean that in order to survive as a human being you need to think and you need to be able to act. I would argue that anyone that disputes those facts, or believes otherwise, is subscribing to a belief system not grounded in reality and reason.

Your rights, as a human being, are the direct corollary of those two facts of nature. The ability to think is a requirement of your survival and that is why you have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. Your material requirements for survival are the root from which your rights to acquire and own property, to associate and to travel derive.

Within a political context, these become moral sanctions on certain actions. But the "natural rights" theorists will point out that these are all things that are fundamental requirements for your survival even in an isolated context. You can't wish or "believe" these facts away.

Natural rights do not exist outside of the belief in a social contract. That social contract is also a fundamental part of human survival. They are an extension of human reason and do not exist a priori. History is rife with examples of how natural rights is a belief that can be eroded, unlike true natural laws. Besides that, human have the capacity for reason, but this should not be confused with saying humans are rational. That means we have irrational beliefs that can contribute to survival but do not, in fact, reflect reality. That in turn means "fitness for survival" is not a rational basis for determining facts.

Thanks for replying. This seems like a pretty reasonable position.

I'm assuming the "role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens" would extend to the rights of children as well as parents? Like you, I also don't believe people need to be protected from information (except in cases of extreme asymmetries of risk, e.g., national security). However, I think an important nuance is to distinguish between information and particularly nefarious methods of disseminating/collecting information.

As a potentially poorly thought-out example, the government protects our rights to self-defense. However, this right should not be conflated with assuming we have the right to any mechanism of self-defense. There are certain mechanisms of self-defense that the government puts limits on. E.g., I do not have an unchecked right to protect myself with a machine-gun or a nuclear arsenal. So while I agree with your fundamental principle, it still remains unclear to me where the limits of regulations/rights stand.

>the fact that an enormous amount of empirical data underscores the risk to an individual's health posed by the consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, it can be argued that a parent allowing their children to smoke could potentially amount to child endangerment or abuse

I think this is the exact point the article was poking at: to some, social media is viewed as such a risk as to be tantamount to being abusive. It sounds like you are at least acknowledging that as a potential valid perspective, even if you disagree about the risk assessment. As a corollary, though, I'm not sure there is the same preponderance of evidence of real or imminent danger in social media as in the cigarette example.

>> That said, I remember my parents caught me smoking and had me smoke an entire pack to induce illness so that I would not want to smoke again. And it worked. So this is a topic more complicated than it first appears surface-level.

This is child abuse, to be totally clear. I'm really sorry you were put through that.