>Just don't take my freedom of self destruction. It's an important one to me, whether or not you feel the same. You have that freedom regardless of whether the

>Just don't take my freedom of self destruction. It's an important one to me, whether or not you feel the same. You have that freedom regardless of whether the government allows deadly food to be sold or not. A famous libertarian economist once said that we can't only consider the ideal in isolation from the actual policies that are enacted toward that ideal - his main consideration was the capitalist idea of freedom, but mine is the idea of public health and harm due to negligence. >I'm just trying to eat a hypothetical pufferfish, maaaan. No you're not, you're arguing for society to be structured in such a way that companies are allowed to use dangerous products in what they sell to people. You can eat the pufferfish (and I must say that I urge you to) but that doesn't mean others should have to bear the cost of fearing if their next meal will kill them. >No, that isn't a good reason to arrest me for buying or selling a fish. This is about as reductionist as the claim that knife murder is simply the actuation of muscles and the thrusting of a metal object. How can you illegalise moving metal objects? >The most ridiculous laws you people make are the ones that make parts of nature illegal Plenty of things part of nature are illegal, including (but not limited to) rubbing the back of a frog that produces deadly toxins onto all the objects in your home.