Let’s negate this. If governments are able to make people take a reasoned approach, it doesn’t change the author’s argument that a reasoned approach means less of a role for the government, because fewer people are inuring others.

Even if the government had to diminish people’s ability to promote their own welfare to serve its purpose, the conclusion could still be true. The argument is about preventing people from hurting others — not what happens to the people who it prevents from injuring others.

This is necessary to conclude that if people take a reasoned approach, the government should have less power. If people who take a reasoned approach are equally likely to injure people, then the government still needs to serve its role of preventing people from injuring others.

It only matters for the argument whether people will injure others — not what eventually happens to them.

What we want to know is that people with a reasoned approach injure other people less. We’re concerned with preventing people from injuring others — it doesn’t matter who specifically is more likely to be injured.