Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

highline.huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#81

Post by rcthompson »

LordKano wrote: post #28
Retra wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things, I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object. In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision, and so the onus is on the anti-vaxxer to sho…

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things. To illustrate, most of our laws are "Thou shall not..." versus "Thou must..." to punish "bad" behavior instead of compel "good" behavior. I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice. Or why a simple…

> Can the state compel everyone to be a vegan unless they can show proof of a medical condition that would make it unworkable?

If not being a vegan had a negative effect on the health and safety of the people around you, then yes, they could and should do exactly that.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#82

Post by leni536 »

LordKano wrote: post #28
Retra wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things, I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object. In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision, and so the onus is on the anti-vaxxer to sho…

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things. To illustrate, most of our laws are "Thou shall not..." versus "Thou must..." to punish "bad" behavior instead of compel "good" behavior. I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice. Or why a simple…

I'd argue that the whole purpose of a state is to shift game theoretic weights of decisions of individuals in a way that benefits the overall population. So we don't fall into certain instances of the "tragedy of the commons" [1].

Vaccination is a good example. As an individual there is a really small risk in not vaccination if everybody else do otherwise (the disease can't spread). If there is no regulation then the Nash equilibrium will be at a not desirable point, where a certain percentage of people still don't vaccinate and the disease never dies out. If there is a regulation it can increase the cost of not vaccinating (most easily you pay a high amount of fine and you still have to vaccinate) and shifts the Nash equilibrium to a more effective point.

tl;dr: you don't vaccinate only for yourself and your kids, you vaccinate for everybody stopping the spreading of the disease.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

edit: Note that making vaccination mandatory is not the only (but IMHO an effective) way to motivate vaccination. The state can reward people who take vaccination.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#83

Post by mattstreet »

sageikosa wrote: post #66
saulrh wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about "Thou shalt not spread deadly diseases by leaving yourself unvaccinated", by analogy to "Thou shalt not spread deadly diseases by selling tained food" or "Thou shalt not spread deadly diseases by leaving your hair out when you're working in a restaurant's kitchen"?

By leaving yourself unvaccinated, you are bearing the risks of contamination. The risks that someone else takes leaving themselves unvaccinated is up to them.

That's not how vaccination works. Even if I get all my vaccines, there is a chance one of them didn't work for me. Then when people start getting sick and spreading it because not enough of us are vaccinated, so do I.

They work by having the vast majority of people not carriers so that the few that don't end up protected directly are still protected.

This is sorta like having shitty brakes and tires. Sure you're the person most likely affected but there's a good chance your accident is going to mean harming someone that does have good brakes and tires.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#84

Post by mattstreet »

filoeleven wrote: post #54
sp332 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could still be a civil suit - if someone actually got sick because you weren't vaccinated, they could sue you for damages. Also, once you give the government the authority to require people to be injected, they will probably start expanding it in various directions. That's really not a power I want to give to them.

If someone got sick because you weren't vaccinated, does that not imply that they were also not vaccinated? Or are there cases where e.g. you can only get vaccinated as an adult, and you're suggesting a civil suit if you infect a child?

Why are you debating vaccines when you don't even know the basic facts about them such as they don't end up protecting everyone, which is why herd immunity is so important?

Like maybe read just a tiny bit about them first?

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#85

Post by chadgeidel »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #67
chadgeidel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it presents a great possibility of abuse; I appreciate your concern, but this is a slippery slope fallacy. It's highly unlikely it would be abused without knowledge, because we currently have a net-good policy that is being "debated" at all levels today. I can't imagine a net-neutral or net-evil policy would slip by undetected.

Slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy. In fact, since this is a political (and more importantly, rhetorical) debate, slippery slope isn't a fallacy at all. It is an argument, carrying some weight or none at all, depending on how it is presented. In light of an article that is precisely about how "Big Pharma" overprescribed drugs to people who didn't need them, suggesting that allowing the government to enforc…

Point taken. I should not have used that rhetorical device. Thanks for the correction.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#87

Post by tomjen3 »

Retra wrote: post #17
LordKano wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-vaxxers would have a point even if J&J wasn't involved in shady activity. I am not an anti-vaxxer. I was vaccinated. I had my children vaccinated. I just hold the position that the power of the state shouldn't be used to compel people to inject substances into their bodies, even if we think we have a good reason for doing it. I'm not looking to delve too deeply into the politics of it but there are good reas…

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things, I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object. In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision, and so the onus is on the anti-vaxxer to sho…

>In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision

Okay, the state now orders all the people to stop eating red meat and show up for 45 minutes of mandatory PE at 6 am monday, wednesday and friday.

After all the list of benefits of exercise is tremendous.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#88

Post by twoodfin »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #63
Retra wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you attribute the US's success in this area to its economic system and not it's massive population, fertile & expansive territory, socio-political isolation, and worldwide military presence?

Russia has all this and its GDP per capita is one quarter ours. Not to mention the fall of the Soviet Union, etc. Yeah so "just having resources equals success" is asinine. Not to mention all the academic research on the success of open markets, low regulation, etc.

Japan also does pretty well with very little of those innate advantages.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#89

Post by JustSomeNobody »

LordKano wrote: post #28
Retra wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things, I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object. In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision, and so the onus is on the anti-vaxxer to sho…

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things. To illustrate, most of our laws are "Thou shall not..." versus "Thou must..." to punish "bad" behavior instead of compel "good" behavior. I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice. Or why a simple…

"I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things."

Such as put other people in danger?

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#90

Post by jsprogrammer »

Retra wrote: post #17
LordKano wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-vaxxers would have a point even if J&J wasn't involved in shady activity. I am not an anti-vaxxer. I was vaccinated. I had my children vaccinated. I just hold the position that the power of the state shouldn't be used to compel people to inject substances into their bodies, even if we think we have a good reason for doing it. I'm not looking to delve too deeply into the politics of it but there are good reas…

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things, I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object. In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision, and so the onus is on the anti-vaxxer to sho…

>a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision

These are dangerous words. "Sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision"? What does that even mean? My take on trying to derive the meaning of that sentence is that it doesn't actually mean anything.

What is a "good decision" and what does it mean to be "sufficiently demonstrated"? I posit that no one could sufficiently define those words as to make an actionable decision criteria that satisfies those (highly abstract) requirements.

Many states have felt that it was a good decision to force people into labor or death and the consequences have been severe. Are you really trying to reuse their (poor) reasoning?

Post reply on HN