Your last sentence makes no sense. Something can both be good, and be undesirable for government regulation. For example, it's good for me to eat vegetables. But it would be odious to have a law requiring me to eat X number of vegetables per day. Similarly, a person can be in favor of wearing seatbelts but opposed to a law requiring seatbelt use.

Your reasoning is flawed, eating vegetables or not basically only affects you and your health, not wearing a seatbelt turns you into a projectile against the general public.

> not wearing a seatbelt turns you into a projectile against the general public.

if you are driving a convertible :)

You sullied a great set of questions with the last sentence, which makes the whole set fail the ideological Turing test.