The government can just as well have "addiction" problems with things that are bad for the population which are supported by the population.
The difference isn't free-will or not, it is only the level on which it is applied.
I prefer personal free will to collective free will whenever it is possible and reasonable.
The purpose of government is to do things we can't do for ourselves. I can decide whether or not to use a substance which might be addictive or to abstain from it forever. The government can do that too but I really don't think they need to. They need to make sure that those kinds of products are sold pure and as expected, that there is accurate information about their usage and effects available, and that people selling them do not mislead or manipulatively hook people, but ultimately I would rather a responsible individual make decisions than a collective.
I don't think anybody is going around discussing the philosophy of government because they're concerned that they aren't free enough to be advertised to.
There is a marked difference between governments interfering with an individual's freedom to act on themselves and interfering with an individual's freedom to manipulate the actions of others.
>giving mega corporations carte blanche to market poisonous and addictive substance
They absolutely do not have this. Tobacco ads are banned from TV and Radio in the US, for example. Wouldn't exactly call that a blank check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smokin...
I want the government to promote what is true, not what is right.
Heroin isn't a good habit, but it's surprisingly well tolerated by the human body and the majority of evils come from prohibition itself.
Way ahead of you...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/11/purdue-pharm...
$12B to make the cops go away. The adult version of Carlos the Jackal.
