[mantas]

The problem is in modern societies the society is footing the bill for those who choose, let's say, unwisely.

Why should my mandatory social and medical insurance taxes go fix issues created by such wrong choices? Should the society not cover them? E.g. smokers with lung cancer should pay out of pocket? Or should society try to minimize wrongdoing instead?

[s1artibartfast]

Indeed, there are different interpretations of the social contract.

You have essentially two polar options.

First option is that social services come with strings attached that entitle the providers to control the lives of the recipients.

Second is that social services are freely given, and the recipients have not given up their autonomy. the givers can choose to stop giving, or place conditions on gifts, but they dont get direct control over the recipients.

Either are fine in theory, but the problem is with ex-post recontracting. for example, when a gift or service is freely given, and then someone demands payment later.

There are some interesting works of fiction that explore alternatives. For example, allowing adults to choose how much of their autonomy they want to abdicate for differing levels of entitlements and guarantees.

[johnea]

So you're saying you want to be "protected" from pwople who make these unwise choices?

I would agree with this, in the sense that the people who institute predatory algorithmic human interfaces are the ones who chose "unwisely".

[pixl97]

> is in modern societies the society is footing the bill

This isn't exactly true.... All societies always have footed the bill, modern or not. If you cast the person out in a middle age society then expect to get robbed by bandits on your next visit to the town next door.

Which emphasizes why you should attempt to minimize wrongdoing before it gets expensive, when you don't it turns into that story of "there was an old lady who swallowed a fly"