Hmm. Under what circumstances do y'all think the state should intervene to take choices away from people? What factors would you take into account when making that decision? How bad it is for the person? How bad it is for other people? How unpopular the decision will be, how much political capital it'll cost you? Some other factors?

@Angle The state takes choices away all the time, and in most cases it's a good thing.

The problematic area is only taking the choices away from poor people/other disadvantaged people under the guise of welfare.

(Plus the public health argument doesn't hold as much water in the US where there isn't actually a societal healthcare that would have to deal with increased costs from bad public health, since everything is individualistic)

@elomatreb Eh, I'd still say the government should have an interest in public health. Thats basically what they're for, after all, in one form or another. :/

@Angle True of course, but esp. the US government doesn't seem too concerned with that (considering e.g. gun laws)

@elomatreb Well no, but thats because lots of the people who make up said government aren't concerned with it. It doesn't mean they /shouldn't/ be concerned with it. :/

@Angle That's where the presence of a (more or less) tax-funded single-pot healthcare system comes in, because if the pot has to be very large it diverts taxes away from other things so there is an incentive

@elomatreb ...? I don;t follow. An incentive to care about public health? :/