It didn’t start with seatbelts, but it was the one that caused the most stir. The argument was that not only would it save lives, but would cut down on health care costs. Same thing with airbags. Same thing with smoking. Same thing with what choices you can have as to what you eat. And where are all those savings. I don’t see any statistical record to validate those claims of savings?
Don’t get me wrong, many of these things I agree with even though the libertarian in me keeps telling me: “It’s still some bureaucrat and accountant telling you how to live your life!”

My problem with all this is that when some petty bureaucrat behind a glass lives by the all size fits one system. If it’s in the regs, regardless of how ephemeral the connection between those regulations, it can be denied. This puts way too much power in the hands of some person, no smarter or wiser than I, who may be having a bad day, to make an important decision on how I should conduct my life just to save the health care system, or the whales, or the earth.

Years ago I had an argument about cigarettes with a rather fat friend whose father’s socialist union boss world view had tainted his as well.

He said the government was justified in pushing for a ban on smoking because we all had to pay for the healthcare costs of smokers.
I said it was wrong to abrogate my freedom twice.
And that his argument could be used for any number of behaviour modifying laws restricting personal freedom for the public good.

I said one day they will come for the things you eat.
He couldn’t conceive of that day.
And here we are.