> Mandating X essentially forces expensive products down the throat of people but since inequality is high they can't afford them. This is true for anything. F

> Mandating X essentially forces expensive products down the throat of people but since inequality is high they can't afford them. This is true for anything. For example on classic argument is about consumer safety. If the state puts up barriers to trade (eg. I can't sell my cheap lead painted toys and maybe fake generic medicine and maybe rancid meat), then things will be much more expensive. Of course the slippery slope is many times just the continuum fallacy in disguise. In these cases the real problem is manifold, on one part it's a serious lack of social solidarity and social safety net, and the other component is whatever the actual other part is (eg. unsafe toys that babies can swallow, health concerns about food, drugs, etc.). Real solutions have to address both. Eg. carbon taxes with direct social dividend. (Or other variations, where the raised money goes to directly address those same issues that arise due to climate change.)