For the products you have labels with information. Nobody forces you to eat 30-40% sugars and fats. You can read it and choose to not consume it. For the addictiveness of social media and dopamine injections, you have parents. Parents can take the phone away from you. Parents can get you a different phone or a modified phone. You can limit phone usage in schools, clubs and home. People like me benefit greatly from social media because I'm aware of its hard and I avoid it. I don't engage with every feature and I limit who and what I follow. I spend almost no time on social media thanks to that and when I do it's very productive and entertaining. The iPhone isn't the problem - the consumers are or their parents. You have a choice. And the people engaged in it know it's bad for them. Same goes for pornography. You can argue that all of this is a problem because an addict can't control themselves. Well, how about we don't get them addicted in the first place? I'm not an addict. And it's not because I'm immune to this stuff. I just limited and curated it from a young age. I have no hatred of women despite playing online video games for over 18 years. Why? Because it makes no sense. If you are rational from a young age, you can avoid all those pitfalls. And, again, you have parents for that. You have peers. You have schools. Limiting freedoms because someone doesn't do their job hurts a lot more people and it barely affects those for which those freedoms were limited. And getting addicts freed is a matter of social effort. Not government effort. The government can't stop drugs. The government can't stop smoking. The government can't stop pornography. The government can't stop bleeps and bloops on a screen from producing dopamine in your brain. So instead of trying to do the impossible, how about we maximize the possible. We have the right to bear responsibility for our fellow citizens. You shouldn't force it on us. And yes, there are certain regulations that need to be in place - they are called laws. Putting poison in my food without telling me is a crime. Putting poison in my food, telling me that there is poison in my food and giving me the choice to consume it or not, is not a crime. And the more society accepts freedoms, the more wealth it can maintain and the more we can help each other. Yaron said it very clearly - people should be free to make stupid decisions. You CANNOT stop that unless you put everyone in jail and even then you run into the warden control problem - there is no mathematical way to enforce the loop and put everyone under the same rule of law in such a system. Laissez faire Capitalism is the only option that does not violate the rights of anyone and in fact protects them. Limited government and freedom of trade. That's it. Citizens can unite and help others if they so choose, and if you go look and ask, it's easily done because people love to help other people and they don't need to be forced to do it. The more you take away from people, the less willing they are to help, until they are so broke that they so nothing to lose by helping. The more you leave to people, the more they will use it to help others (on average). And last I checked, charity does more efficient and net value than any government program ever has. Regulations that protect rights are simply called laws. Regulations that manipulate the economy are regulations and they shouldn't exist. Putting a label on a bag of chips that says this has 80% bad stuff for you is a law. Forcing chip manufacturers to make chips that contain a maximum of 30% bad stuff for you is a regulation (and all it does is move everyone to make more of the bad stuff because they have the moral public defense of the government said it's okay and so by extension you did too, the consumer who voted for that government. You can't force bad out. You can only encourage good in.

Reform voters

This example falls apart because rights for minors are not the same. You can't compare the two. Yaron is in favor of laws against selling drugs and cigarettes to minors (these are not regulations - these are laws - they protect rights; they don't manipulate the market) but when you are of age, he doesn't give a fk if you sell people cocaine or sell your body. You make choices. So no, the underage girl who sells her body does not win in this transaction - she doesn't know better which is why the classification of minor even exists. Btw, I like this example you gave. It's a good test for the logic presented. Going to the extremes is precisely what Yaron does and Ayn Rand did and any philosophy that is worth its salt does. That's how you check that your logic is sound. Yaron talked about equality of basketball and breaking Labron James' legs. That's extreme and that's exactly the point.

@SiMeGamer the law is based on " she does not know better because she is below 18, but that is not true. Biologically speaking, a 18 years old can be below 16 biologically speaking and a 16 years old can be more mature than a 18 year old. But this was partly beside my point, both parts does not win when one side take advantage of somebody else's desperation and the other part "have no coice" than to accept what ever to survive.