[echelon]

> Well, your government is "anyone" to define what harm is

I'm saying the government is largely sufficient. In areas where it isn't, such as industrial chemicals, pharma, etc., companies can work in a regulatory manner to craft governance. But the less it's needed, the better.

> The folks dishing it out weren't doing it for fun or to build strength in others, they were doing it because it advanced their own interests.

I was saying this tongue in cheek, but are you suggesting we should place more limits on free speech because it can be used to get ahead? That's 1984 thought policing.

[majormajor]

But that "the less it's needed, the better" is still an incredibly fuzzy standard. Your "it's not needed more" point is going to be different than your neighbor's, and so what's the framework for deciding which point to use?

"I think it's already doing about the right amount" is just an opinion, much weaker than the first sort of at-first-apparently "principle"-based "by attempting to reign in human behavior, you only further any divides that separate us" pontification. You just think it's already reined in enough. But you aren't calling for much rollback of what it's doing - instead, you're saying there are even other areas where it isn't sufficient.

Here's an inverted example for the speech one: there's a lot of complaining and teeth-gnashing about "cancel culture" but... all the outrage that gets people canceled is completely free speech.

> I was saying this tongue in cheek, but are you suggesting we should place more limits on free speech because it can be used to get ahead? That's 1984 thought policing.

There was probably a misunderstanding there, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" colloquially refers to far more than just speech as I understand it. And e.g. restricting access to schools or jobs is not gonna make the restricted ones stronger. Just make them suffer.