Banana-- you seem to often presume where an idea is going, and then carry on and build arguments based on the presumption. I think this is what often leads you to strawmanning people's arguments.

Wuf's point was not "if government is better at making you safe, they should be able to whatever whatever.." his point is "if government is better able to fulfil your preferences, on balance, they are justified in doing government shit to see to it." This means, if you don't wear your seat belt because it ruffles your clothes, but you actually value the reduction in the damages seen in a low probability catastrophic event more than you value your daily unruffled clothes, but because you're bad at probability you pass up value and keep your clothes unruffled by not wearing your seat belt, this likely is a place for government to intervene.

Now I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that this is the base justification for government's legislation and enforcement of said legislation-- but being for or against the assertion doesn't matter if you aren't actually considering the assertion when deciding whether you are for or against. This is what happens when you unintentionally strawman an argument.


As for your response to MMM-- you seem fixated on this idea that the constitution is set in stone. It is not. The founding fathers knew it was a starting point and knew there would be amendments-- the first 10 of which were added within two years of the constitution coming into effect. So, already we have it that this is a living document that not only will change with the society, but it was in fact designed to. Now you or I or whoever may feel that certain changes go against the spirit of the constitution, however being designed to adapt, there are clear paths to edit the constitution, and so long as the rules of the current constitution are followed at the time of each amendment, we can end up with a constitution that says anything. And this is why the broader, non-americentric question of "what is the purpose of government" is relevant and always will be.