His point is we're picking and choosing when and how to interfere with peoples' destructive behaviors. My mother is allowed to be a drunk, nobody cares how it

His point is we're picking and choosing when and how to interfere with peoples' destructive behaviors. My mother is allowed to be a drunk, nobody cares how it impacted my childhood. I'm allowed to have trust issues, though it impacts my relationships. I'm allowed to overeat though it might impact my childrens' view of obesity, likelihood to be obese, and finances if they have to support me later. Etc etc. We've chosen to not allow people to play poker online, to protect them from themselves, but it's a rather arbitrary thing to choose, especially given all the other ways they can destroy their finances. We can't protect everyone from being exploited in every manner, and it could probably be argued that we ought to quit trying in a lot of cases. IMO it's generally not our place to protect people from themselves.