TLDR : 1 - Some human action have negative consequence affecting other human being, or even have a high probabilities to generate consequences not bored by the

TLDR : 1 - Some human action have negative consequence affecting other human being, or even have a high probabilities to generate consequences not bored by the person. That's why you can't "drink and drive" even if you havent (yet!) caused any accident. 2 - It's okay for society to prescribe (either by social norms or law) behavior that are dimmed beneficial. Of course this can and has gone very bad, but this everybody does what they want fundamentally doesn't scale neither > I simultaneously don't think society has a role in restricting it more than presently, at least in the US. Restricting maybe not, but strongly discouraging as well as informing the public of the strong negative consequences should be fair game. > It turns out humans who don't care about wasting talent like wasting it any way they can; be it alcohol, drugs, video games, gang violence, take your pick. IMO, a lot of things wrong here. I don't think there is a line somewhere that clearly separate the talent waster to the productive people. Human usually respond (albeit differently) to incentive structure. The point of those intervention is change the incentive structure of the environment to make the desired behavior a bit more common. > Motorcycles are 20 times as deadly as cars to the rider - but I don't believe the government has any role in shutting them down. Motorcycles seems to be "obvisouly" dangerous that most poeple do not drive them. Same reason we do not regulate rope-jumping : The impact on society is not that high. If/When the amount of people driving motorcyles increases as to become a problem, then more regulation might be needed. > or example, the requirements for lots of new safety equipment in new cars has been shown to have significantly priced out poorer communities, causing them to opt for cheaper, older, even more dangerous vehicles. First, references ? Second then let's make those things offorable for the target population... Let's not make life unsafe for everybody else... > Fourth, I think is honestly stupid that he factors drugs in as an example of how "we can ban drugs - why not alcohol?" Because they are both (potentially) addictive substances...