Hacker News Reader

No, but I think GP’s point is that there will always be a tradeoff between personal liberty and safety. We can argue about where the line should be, but it needs to be drawn somewhere between the two extremes.

But GP's OP is not saying there shouldn't be a line, rather that it is that line that will likely be crossed in guise of public safety to unburden us from the burden of having liberties.

Food, water, stuff like that have potential to kill off everyone. Drunk drivers on the other hand are not likely to ever pose an existential threat. So I tend to agree with those who insist that, of course there must be regulation, there must be informed discussion, no we shall not consult the i-ching, but definitely loss of liberties require an exceptionally high public good threshold to be considered.

tldr; to keep that line in an optimal space between the extremes, clearly two opposing forces are necessary.

Oh such a classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ

Some libertarians are -- but I think they were trying to employ the slippery slope argument

The slope we’ve slid down so far has been very slippery indeed.