[Ken H]

Public drunkenness is already against the law; operating heavy machinery and doing various responsible tasks (parenting, surgery, driving, air traffic control. . .) while drunk is against the law; supplying alcohol to minors is against the law.

So there is already quite a bit of "nanny state" intervention as you term it.

No, I do NOT term the above as "nanny state interventions". They are laws concerning public behavior that endangers or interferes with other individuals, not someone's mental capacity.

You said you supported government intervention for those who are "deliberately destroying their mental capacity". I ask again, what interventions do you propose for the hundreds of thousands of alcoholics who are doing just that?

[Persevero]

I think I could support a law that criminalizes the consumption of alcohol by physically determined alcoholics.

There is a hotel in where is it? Washington state? Which “treats” alcoholics by supplying them with alcohol. I think that should be illegal, too.

[Persevero]

“They are laws concerning public behavior that endangers or interferes with other individuals, not someone’s mental capacity. “

The problem is, unless we are trust fund babies with a huge personal infrastructure in place -

we are all going out in public.

Working. Having kids. Being in places of responsibility. Voting. Crossing the street. Entering relationships. Setting examples. Transacting business.

In the Libertarian mindset, every man sits upon his island, affecting pretty much nobody. It is a lie.