There's a discussion to be had there but I say, now explicitly, that it is pointless in this kind of bad faith context. Frame your incredulity as a question. H

There's a discussion to be had there but I say, now explicitly, that it is pointless in this kind of bad faith context. Frame your incredulity as a question. How can this be prevented without a nanny state? Libertarians in general, do not believe in the legalisation of violence which is orthogonal to the nanny state. Same as if someone were to randomly put arsenic in your food. That understood how do you deal with it? It's your right to knowingly consume poison in full knowledge of what it is and what it does to you OR you are prevented from doing so because, when you have full knowledge, you will make the wrong decision deciding arsenic is tastier or whatever. Noting also there exist compromises between those two (eg you can do whatever to yourself, but it's made harder - with differing views on how good or bad such policy is). All of those /can/ prevent _unwitting_ lead poisoning. Which polict is best, according to what criteria and at what necessary cost in trade off is something on which reasonable people can disagree, and can be discussed productively and in good faith. But clearly not here today.