Comment by oneplane | Hacker News Reader

Comment by oneplane | Hacker News Reader

Reading this gives me the creeps and a whole lot of 'no shit, sherlock'. This is third-world kind of stuff. How can this not be solved over there by now? Privately hosted rooftop water tanks? Really? Does health and personal excellence mean so little?

At this point, in my area it's required by law to have a hydrofoor when your building is 13 meters tall (or taller). No water tower allowed, and skipping the entire thing isn't allowed either. In the USA that would probably be regarded as 'nanny state', but this is a typical case where you cannot trust a company or installer or building owner to do this right by default, hurting basically everyone else. I'm not sure what hydrofoor translates to, but it's basically a pressuriser, pump, buffer tank in one, that you have in the technical room of your building, that is inspected by the water company which is inspected by the 'watershap' (not sure what that translates to), which is inspected by the government. It takes a whole lot of people doing it wrong on purpose before that chain fails and you get bad water.

> In the USA that would probably be regarded as 'nanny state'

Maybe, but... building codes and regulations != nanny state in my opinion. Nanny state is more like banning soda, supersize meals at restaurants, etc. to protect people from themselves.

"Sorry, but you can't be trusted to make good choices about what you put in your body, so we will make laws that force you to make better choices"

I actually see both of your examples as instances of the same technique, and I wouldn't call either nanny state, but sensible policy.

I'm more concerned with corporate control, especially re health care. I know people who have to walk in circles during meetings because their step count is too low for their weight, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

It's only "sensible" because you happened to agree with the policies I chose. Nanny state (again, in my opinion) is infringing on the individual's right to choose.

Why should I, a skinny fit person with self control, not be allowed to buy a supersized meal after running a half marathon? I'm being punished because of the choices of the obese.

You might not like nanny state regulations as much if it impacted something important to you - like limiting internet usage for example.

"People have no self control when it comes to internet and especially social media usage, new ISP regulations will disconnect your internet temporarily if it detects you have been using social media for too many consecutive hours"

You can't avoid the choices of others. Pay now, pay later (for instance, in higher health insurance or tax payments), but it's naive to complain about having being impacted at all.

Government exists to infringe on individual rights. You're basically arguing for abolishing the whole thing. Consequently, "They're infringing on my rights" is a circular, pointless argument, unless you really want to just talk about how all government is bad.

You can buy two meals if you like. The policy applies a cost disincentive to unhealthy eating, an approach which has proven success as a disincentive for nicotine addiction and alcohol consumption. Since society pays a steep price for the pandemic level of obesity it is justified to apply a modest price signal. And while the effect on each individual is small, the benefit for some individuals is enormous -- they will avoid the effects of obesity, like type II diabetes, and live longer lives. Your tiny soda sacrifice will save lives.

In contrast, obesity penalties at the level of some insurance companies is really extreme, to the extent of controlling their daily actions, and leading them to seriously consider use of dangerous weight loss drugs (amphetamines basically) and major gastric surgery.

There is no need to construct an enormous and improbable straw man if you want 'nanny state' regulations, there are plenty of examples. For example, alcohol sales policy. Why can you buy lite beer in many places in the US, but not full strength beer or wine or spirits? It isn't because of cheap drunks -- they are cheap and buying in bulk, a $40 bottle of wine isn't going to interest them. It is a hodge podge of local and state govt regulation with little tangible benefit.

The difference between good and bad regulations is often whether they are based on evidence and statistical re-evaluation, or knee-jerk politics. Well considered policy will identify groups that suffer detriment. I can't identify a group that will be harmed by discouraging discounted soda.

Nanny state is maybe better than a malicious/negligent one, from a public health standpoint at least.

Flint, MI government intentionally exposed its people to lead poisoned water.

> "Sorry, but you can't be trusted to make good choices about what you put in your body, so we will make laws that force you to make better choices"

How about extending this to ending the war on drugs?

I am in favor of legalizing drugs. I should be able to buy chemically pure substances, for example I might want to study the chemical properties of the drug.

I'm in favor of (what I consider to be) non-nanny regulation around drugs though - ban advertising (I actually think alcohol ads should be banned as well) and certain drugs should only have generic labels listing chemical information, should be age-restricted, and behind-the-counter (by request only).

How about extending it to removing FDA oversight of medicines?

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Time and time again, people have demonstrated that they don't act rationally. So if there is a way to reduce the space of people making unsound decisions, that should be an overall benefit to society. Not drinking soda is not going to lower one's quality of life in any meaningful way. Of course the issue people are concerned about here is where does the power to lay down such restrictions stop. It's not a mutually exclusive issue though, you can have rules that protect the population without going overboard.

Of course you know best, don't you.

No, you don't. Look at the Alfie Evans circus. The only sane people there were the physicians because they are trained in medical ethics.

It's quite obvious that things like soda and smoking contribute only negatives. Things like that can be straightforwardly managed and banned.

Unless someone likes soda more than they dislike the side effects. Get your mind control pitch out of here.

And end up with obesity and other issues caused by sodas that cost much more to fix and treat.

Don't bring cost into it, because letting them die after making awful decisions is super cheap...

Collective rational thought and research to establish a scientific consensus that sugary drinks make you fat and ill knows best.

> Collective rational thought and research to establish a scientific consensus that sugary drinks make you fat and ill knows best.

Collective rational thought also brought us such wonders as eugenics, phrenology...

I'm no fan of sugared beverages, nor do I consume them with any regularity, but it isn't my right to tell people they can't enjoy them because some people abuse them. Ordinary people have every option not to buy or keep soda in their house or near them at work; ordinary professional and personal interventions are sufficient to stop people from drinking them.

I have met a lot of obese people who avoid soda for its health risks, it is not a sufficient intervention on its own to change most people's dietary issues.

Now, if you want to talk about making soda, candy, sweet pastries, and low-value juice from SNAP, that's a different matter. It should not be criminal for me to put sugar in seltzer water and sell it to willing people.

> ordinary professional and personal interventions are sufficient to stop people from drinking them.

Ostensibly not. Even more evident for people who smoke. Absolutely zero reason to do that, only negative effects. It's wreckless and careless behavior on anyone who allows it.

The real "nanny state" is a homeowner's association.

I agree some of the HOA covenants can be onerous, but I am in favor of the ones that prevent individual homeowners from infringing on the rights of neighboring homeowners - like banning smoking indoors in shared housing.

Their main purpose is to protect everyone’s investment.

Their main purpose is to make your life a living hell by allowing your neighbors to run your life.

Hmmm. I only have experience with a well run HOA then, in a townhouse community. During my ownership, the HOA maintained the streets, fences, paint, and common areas. The value of the property improved over time. I can’t say that my life was a “living hell” due to the HOA.

The problem is "protecting property values" can mean cracking down on things like insufficient lawn trimming, or not having a lawn, even in climates where lawns make zero sense, like Arizona, or simply the presence of non-white people who might "decrease property values".

What if you don't want a fence? What if the HOA gets slowly subverted by a bunch of nosy types that just want to make sure everything is perfect and nobody steps out of line? The legal authority of an HOA is surprising in some parts of the US. Don't pay your dues and they can seize your property.

Your property values are going to increase if the area is desirable and the economy is doing well. You don't need a fascist HOA to take care of that.

North America has this unreasonable fixation on property values because of how over-invested most people are in their homes.

Their main purpose is to reduce costs to local governments by replacing trained staff with volunteers. HOAs are the Wikipedia of local administration. You ask how towns and counties managed before HOAs were foisted on the people during the Reagan years, and you find out that they managed just fine.

>"Sorry, but you can't be trusted to make good choices about what you put in your body, so we will make laws that force you to make better choices"

Incidentally, it's quite common that people can't be trusted to make good choices about such things.

Forcing people to make good choices isn't a priori absurd. See: seatbelts.

> Incidentally, it's quite common that people can't be trusted to make good choices about such things.

How much of that is being constantly bombarded with marketing (psychological priming) that brainwashes us into making poor decisions? Totally agree though, we as humans are our own worst enemies.

Marketing is not just psychological priming - it's also, first and foremost, dishonest communication. Given its prevalence today, it's getting difficult to expect adults to always make right decisions if most of their information sources are garbage.

People have been making bad decisions since the dawn of time.

Any idea that has 'since the beginning of time' in it gets an instant eye roll.

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. You are expressing shock at "[p]rivately hosted rooftop water tanks", then talking about privately-hosted hydrofoors instead. The rooftop tanks are supposed to be inspected annually by the city as well, but the inspections aren't happening. I don't see how the situation would be any better with this hydrofoor.

Just as note as well, in US cities the government generally is the water company, so we don't have the multiple layers you describe. There is some oversight of lower levels of government by higher levels, but that tends to be more auditory than inspectitory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com