> Between low IQ, impulsivity, addictive personalities, etc., a large fraction of the population needs guardrails imposed by society for the sake of both themselves and the people around them.
I find it telling the the people that have this opinion always seem to believe that they are going to be the arbiters of how other people should live, and that they themselves are without the vices that they would regulate.
And I even agree on the betting bit: it's bad. But then again, so is voting for criminals and yet, we allow it and arguably that causes a lot more damage than betting.
> I find it telling the the people that have this opinion always seem to believe that they are going to be the arbiters of how other people should live, and that they themselves are without the vices that they would regulate
I’ve been blessed not to have addictions to substances or gambling. But I’m a snacker and could afford to lose 25 pounds. (Cardiovascular issues present in south asians at a lower BMI than for others, apparently.) I’d love social reinforcement to help with weight management, e.g. portion sizes when eating out.
I think these issues invariably boil down to the same things: education, self discipline, resistance to peer pressure. Some people have neither of these or only in short supply so there will always be people with problems. Substance abuse (including smoking, alcohol, drugs, and possibly even food), gambling, violence and so on are only - in my opinion - regulatory domains when society has to bear the cost of individual transgressions or when other people (not the people abusing / being violent etc) are directly impacted. Other than that I think live-and-let-live is a pretty good guideline because one person's controlled and self-disciplined pleasure is another persons reason for going after them. And before you know it sexual preferences and other personal stuff are also seen as within the domain of regulators. 'Educate, don't regulate' seems to be a good first principle until you hit the sharp edges.
As for portion sizes: my simple rule is that if I did not put it on the plate myself I don't necessarily have to eat it and peer pressure be damned.
I don't think that follows. Doctors are doctors but also they are people and whatever metric you apply to any large fraction of the population will most likely follow a bell curve. A subset of doctors will probably shift the centerline a bit left or right depending on what the subject is but there will still be outliers. So fat doctors will exist, mostly because they can exist, and likewise very skinny ones will exist too.
I find it telling the the people that have this opinion always seem to believe that they are going to be the arbiters of how other people should live, and that they themselves are without the vices that they would regulate.
And I even agree on the betting bit: it's bad. But then again, so is voting for criminals and yet, we allow it and arguably that causes a lot more damage than betting.