Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kbelicius | Hacker News Reader

> Baby milk is a disingenuous analogy since it's not expected to be consumed by the buyer.

This is a disingenuous argument. FDA doesn't regulate only stuff that is not expected to be consumed by the buyer. GP could have said wine instead of baby milk.

View on HN

And yet they chose baby milk, not wine. Why?

Because not everyone would agree that governments should necessarily regulate everything that you consume. Especially when it's advertised as "consume at your own risk".

> Especially when it's advertised as "consume at your own risk".

Yet alcohol is highly regulated, much more so than baby milk.

But does it make "perfect sense" to regulate it? No. Especially not when there is a large group of population who disagrees to those regulations.

There is always large opposition to regulations of any kind petty much by definition.

"There is always large opposition to restrictions of freedom".

That's a very poor rhetorical tactic since that sentiment could be applied to literally any law, since all laws restrict freedom.

Not every law is a restriction of freedom. My freedom ends where yours begins.

Sadly, some people are more than happy to force their worldview on others, "for their own sake".

What is an example of a law that does not restrict freedom?

A law that bans murder. There is no freedom to murder so it does not restrict any freedom.

Where there is no law against killing people, people are free to do that.

And when people who want to kill people and have been free to kill people get told they are no longer allowed to, they have also been unhappy about it.

No, there is no freedom to murder people no matter where you are. My freedom ends where yours begins.

The same is true for selling poisonous baby milk or wine.

If I want to sell a poisonous wine to an adult that understands the risks and still wants it, then it's none of your business.

So if you want to kill a mentally ill person with their consent, that's also none of our business?

Like was this guy [1] right in what he did and his punishment was unfair?

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

Well that debate escalated very quickly.

You appear to be using the word “freedom” to refer to something other than the ability to act without constraint. The phrase “My freedom ends where yours begins” (and its many variations and false attributions to various famous figures) is one of moral considerations and generally used to argue for what the world ought to be, but it is not and never has been a fundamental — i.e. even when the law falls silent — truth of the reality we actually live in.

Murder means to unlawfully kill a person. Without laws against killing there is no such thing as murder.

So if the laws allow murdering people you would think that you have the freedom to murder people? Or that such laws are psychopathic and don't respect anyone's freedoms at all?

Laws "cannot allow murder"; murder is illegal by definition. For example, if two hypothetical killings take place under identical circumstances but under two different legal jurisdictions, the killing could be considered murder in one place but justified in another. This happens all the time, see Florida's stand your ground laws for instance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com