It was a mistake of the Enlightenment to assume that everyone can and should be Alphas and Betas, and we're reverting to the natural (and in fact moral and optimal) state of society.
A big justification for the American revolution was taxation (basically, governmental control) without representation (such as a vote). Going to a society that restricts voting and similar 'voice in society' power to a privileged elite would recreate that conflict. We already have a mix of meritocracy and luck of the draw (e.g.: family you're born into).
But driving without a seat belt: Where is the loss of quality of life other than having to accept a rule? Is being told what to do really such a big deal that people would risk their lives over it?
Being unnecessarily restricted by that rule is an infringement. Some prefer going without a seat belt; I'm not one of them, but I believe in having the choice. The bar for government to infringe personal liberty ought to be pretty high.
Then why not try to help him achieve this effort?
For the same reason I don't steal the food out of your home to 'help' you diet and lose weight. Help isn't coercive. With legislation/regulation, you don't help, you seize control.
When you fly through your windshield or when the addict overdoses, we all pay for the emergency room, for the police investigation. You can look away from the action, but you cannot isolate yourself from the consequences. Should the tax payer pay for preventable self-harm?
Yes, and here's the rationale. In effect it buys the public good of personal liberty for individuals. If you justify infringing an individual's liberty due to indirect effects of a tiny minority, such as with the car wreck E.R. visit, you can infringe almost any liberty simply by indirectly tying it to somebody else.
And to the best of my recollection, in all the times I've seen the car wreck/E.R. example, medical treatment, etc., put forth, it seemed to be it was always a rationale, not the true driving motive. I don't recall anyone showing me how much the U.S. saves each year due to forcing motorcyclists to wear helmets and drivers to wear seat belts. I imagine somebody ran some numbers, but I don't get the sense that's what's really motiving the argument. It's just a convenient rationale when told to respect individual liberty.
Put another way, I wonder how much money I'm out as an American tax payer if we repeal seat belt and helmet laws for adults? I suspect it's not enough to make me change my position. Hopefully that explains my rationale without being hypocritical on the basis of indirectly impacting others.
How is that different than building codes, safety regulations? Flammable materials in planes, rules for electrical wiring? Yes, regulations prohibit things.
Building codes protect people from structural defects they don't perceive, often from catastrophic dangers like fires and plane crashes.
The reality is that several countries are already doing that. Denmark has banned industrial trans fats, Spain limits salt on bread, the UK has a sugar tax, and some South American countries have mandatory black warning labels for high-fat and high-sugar products.
McDonald's had to change some of their formulas, but ultimately was able to sell just as much product as before. (Now even a little bit healthier.)
And more importantly: I was talking about cocaine, not salt. Nice shift though 🙂
They are indeed, and there are people who'd like to do a lot more to control their fellow citizenry, as we see from your examples. To ban trans fats protects the public from a threat they were largely unaware of, couldn't see directly, and that I take it can be substituted pretty easily without racking up big costs or killing tastes. But a sugar tax essentially punishes consumers for exercising personal liberty. Are they specifically directing funds thus raised into the health care system, in effect demanding people pay for running up costs? Or just punishing people and pocketing the money?
Mandatory labels are usually okay. Not nearly as effective as some wish, but okay.
Obesity is a disease. No, no one should dictate how much they are allowed to eat.
And yet dictating against unlimited doom scrolling to what social media feed choices they should be allowed is okay? people decry Facebook feeding people 'addictive' content, but the best way to do that is to feed people what they want. Is the Facebook algorithm really worse than the McDonald's menu?
And several countries are going that route of ad restrictions (no ads before 9PM, no cartoon characters for fast food ads), better food in schools, agricultural subsidies (to make fresh and healthy foods cheaper), medical guidelines for and maybe even coverage of GLP-1 weight loss drugs.
Are those measures also seen as "government overreach"?
That has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. With schools we're talking about minors, and from what I've read sometimes in the U.S. such efforts lead to kids dumping lunch food in the trash. Nutritional value is good...if the kids actually eat it. We have some similar ad. restrictions here in the U.S. regarding smoking. And it's a difficult issue, balancing protecting minors vs. free speech rights of advertisers.
Could it be that this is the reason a lot of Americans put their trust into big companies instead of their own government? By your own admission, you have a problem with ID age verification, but you are okay with Meta knowing every little detail about your digital habits?
With big companies, I get a choice - Microsoft or Apple (or Linux!), Mac or Windows. iOS or Android, Toyota or Honda of Tesla, etc. With the government, there is no choice. If you aren't happy with the IRS, you can't just switch platforms (unless we're calling prison a platform).
I don't sweat the Facebook data collection thing too much. Stuff costs money. They don't charge me money, and their business model has to effectively monetize its operations.
Besides, many years ago, I saw t.v. commercials for female hygiene products where a young hottie dressed in white was moving around telling me how much fresher I'd feel if I used that product. I'm a guy; not applicable. So to me, targeted ad.s drawing on data collection have their place.
The distrust against regulations and governments drives us straight into the arms of money-grabbing unregulated companies. Trading one master for another?
Again, with companies we have a choice amongst 'masters,' and with government we don't.
And at least with companies we can often find one we pretty well like, or at least like the products they put out. In the U.S., a phrase I've heard regarding presidential elections is '...hold your nose and vote for...' It speaks to the fact we often don't vote for a person/party/platform, but against one.
Which further reflects that government often doesn't reflect the will of the people (or faction, really) well. If I vote for someone I disdain and he wins, to oppose someone I outright loathe, is that really 'government by the people, for the people,' or just settling for the lesser evil?
One last thing, if I may:
Why is it that on every thread that barely mentions the EU, there are dozens of posts that are very disrespectful? ("EU can kick rocks." "Regulators should all kill themselves." and so on.)
If the American way is "live and let live" and "you have the right to be wrong" and "I will not step in", why the need to tell the EU citizens so loudly and harshly what they are doing wrong?
I'm not a fan of mud-slinging insults like elementary kids arguing on a playground.
The motive is a belief the other side propagates a worldview/values hostile to the interests of one's own. That's not just a E.U. thing; you can see it in pro-life vs. pro-choice (from both sides), conservative vs. liberal, etc...
So people resort to ad hominem attacks - if I can convince the audience you're a deplorable idiot I spare myself the work of wrestling with your logical arguments and sabotage your efforts to win others to your cause. This has no place in mature civil debate, but the motive is clear - demean to disempower. Propaganda!
And it does work both ways. The sanctimonious condescension I've seen directed toward American society (on Quora) and ways from some foreigners is pretty strong - from private gun ownership (some portraying us like the Wild West as if people are routinely afraid to be out in public), to voting Trump into office a second time (it's not just that they disagree or are mystified; to some, it's a powerful indictment against our society), lampooning our lack of universal health care (a complex issue worthy of debate), dissing our education system, griping we don't have 'free college' (it ain't free, and they may leave off the part where theirs are more restrictive with admissions), etc.
That said, there is a 'contagion' effect where what one country pulls off and gets away with inspires like-minded people in other nations - I'm told that's a thing with age verification. Other nations watch to see what a government managed to pull and how they did it. I recently saw an article where some people think the recent concept of 'gentle parenting' in America has inspired changes in France...and some people are upset about resultant poorly disciplined children.
