It sounds like your argument is, The government can be a force for good for people who aren't capable of making rational decisions.

Exactly and young people lack the life experience to comprehend the long-term risks associated with surrendering their private data to the CCP or being exposed to sophisticated disinformation campaigns over time. So it is incumbent on the govt to protect their long-term interests.

And to also ensure that trade relationships are fair and equitable (which it currently isnt).

I fail to see how free markets work if people aren't rational actors. We might as well have a communist economy if we can't count on that.

Besides, anytime we see the government intervene on matters like this, we're reminded how they make it worse.

Or we may as well have no laws because people are completely rational actors no matter their age etc...

And you didn't address my point with respect to young people's lack of life experience. Or that trade relationships should be fair and equitable.

I'm a parent, I guide my kiddos when rationality escapes them. The process itself, parent-child, teaches them how to make their own decisions. Governments can't teach people how to make their own decisions.

The statement that trade relationships must be fair is some sort of neoliberal mumbo jumbo. I don't accept it as an assumption or a consequence. You can accept it as axiomatic if you want, but I don't see it as a consequence of any valid logical train of thought.

Yes but govts can try to minimize the damage from people making bad decisions. Which they do constantly, across all areas of society.

And what you describe as "neo-liberal mumbo-jumbo" I think for most people would be seen as simple commonsense.

It's a social fact which is different from an objective fact based in reality.

ok well I think for most people this "social fact" aligns exactly with reality, and as you've already stated, people are always rational actors so...