[BLKNSLVR]

Life expectancy wasn't the topic, the topic was "engineered our environment so unhealthy choices are so easy to make." and I stand by my answer. No specific judgement either, just cause and effect.

> believing they know what's best for everyone else, and forcing it on them.

Agree, to an extent. Forcing things on people is required of a functioning society. Government and laws and whatnot.

I genuinely don't know where the lines should be drawn on the entire spectrum. Law of unintended consequences and all that.

[WalterBright]

> Forcing things on people is required of a functioning society.

The government's proper role is to prevent people from using force on each other. It is not forcing things that the government imagines are good for people on them.

For example, I believed for decades the advice from the government that margarine was better for me than eggs. That turned out to be backwards.

[BLKNSLVR]

> The government's proper role is to prevent people from using force on each other. It is not forcing things that the government imagines are good for people on them.

I don't think you can necessarily separate those two things from one another so simply, except in the most extreme of examples.

> For example, I believed for decades the advice from the government that margarine was better for me than eggs. That turned out to be backwards.

I'm just going to assume you chose a bad example here. There's no force at play, you're free to choose your thing, you can even have both at the same time. Freedom!

[WalterBright]

1. there are always gray areas, that doesn't invalidate the principle

2. not a bad example - what if the government forced me to use margarine instead, secure it its rectitude? That's the point.