@lucy goverments should also not restrict cannibalism

@lucy i actually super agree with this notion in stuff like free speech or political parties. if the goverment restricts stuff that is “dangerous” and might lead to a bad government then what we are ultimately saying is that people are too stupid to govern themselves and the majority will end up choosing some unacceptable idea as soon as they are exposed to it, which means they can’t govern themselves

however, while i am neutral on possibly lethal competitions, i think the steelman for banning them is not related to not doing the former bans. it’s not that society en masse will kill itself doing lethal competitions if available, it’s that a small subsection of people who is either unhealthily addicted to adrenaline, attention or just too retarded to weigh obvious risks will kill itself. the causes, outcomes and ultimate reason are different

you don’t even have to be concerned abt these ppls well being, to not want this, it just is an (albeit small) drag on the rest of society. if they get seriously injured they will take up hospital/health resources and if they get killed families can get destroyed and kids might grow up without one of their parents which often seems to lead to bad outcomes, both for the kid and everyone around them

but i also think you can argue that at least some of these ppl dont wholesale deserve dying. even if they still are responsible for their own actions ive been at least somewhat sympathetic to some people who died in thrillseeking after hearing their stories. a fair number of them were stuff like dead inside combat veterans who had faced combat as like 19yos and were unable to function back in normal society. similarly, mental illnesses like ADHD or i think? BPD are overrepresented in people who take reckless or dangerous actions

thats not even to say that under this logic the tradeoff would never be worth it. im p sure mountain biking and skydiving is p dangerous, but most societies allow those because on some level they agree that it is worth it allowing to engage in dangerous hobbies, for the rush of it, as part of your personal quest to find happiness and fulfillment. as long as you are able to accept the consequences society has decided to accommodate for the resources

thats also not to say this reasoning is always applied soundly, im sure you could find stuff that is less dangerous than any of this but outlawed for retarded optical reasons.

all that is to say is that it’s not analogous to democracy related bans. youre not banning to protect a majority from self inflicted societal collapse, you are targeting a minority behavior going like “whatever you want to do is so unreasonable in it’s cost-value calculation that the rest of us are unwilling to incur the negative outcomes you might end up inflicting on us, even if they arent that grand in scale, all things considered”