Since liberty seems to be very confusing to people, let me try illustrating a recent form of "argument" I have seen bandied about by apologists for governmental trespass by way of an analogy.

Pictured: not me. Image credit

I have no tattoos or piercings. I have no interest in getting any tattoos or piercings. I find few tattoos or piercings attractive. It's a frivolous expense with no practical value. Many criminals have tattoos, and tattoos are often used as gang insignia, so some people with tattoos are a menace to society. Therefore we should ban tattoos, register everyone who has a tattoo in a national law enforcement database, and imprison anyone caught offering tattoos or piercings.

Wait, what?

Of course that is an overreaction. There is nothing inherently criminal in getting tattoos. That would be an absurd response.

But we do need common sense tattoo control to ensure public safety by requiring all tattoo artists get a license and receive regular inspections, right? Public safety demands it! Anyone who gives a tattoo without this license is still a criminal, so we can still fine and imprison them! We can't have a risk of disease spreading, and underage irresponsible tattoo buyers need to be protected! Same for piercings!

Hint: your rational and moral response here still needs to be,

Wait, what?

Tattoos and piercings are a personal choice that infringes on the liberty of exactly nobody else. You do not have a right to never glimpse inked flesh. You do have a right to use or abuse your own body as you see fit, and you must accept full responsibility for the outcome. If that outcome is an awesome tattoo and gauged ears, that is none of anyone else's business, period.

Tattoo parlors and piercing providers want repeat customers, not dead or diseased clients. That would be bad for business. In reality, the good artists already operate as an informal guild and self-police members who strive to find the best practices for their industry. The ones that only care about passing an annual government inspection are not worth visiting anyway.

---

[tangent] Unless they can use regulatory capture so government ensures consumer choice is restricted to a handful of politically-connected interests, but that never happens in any industry, and certainly never gets pointed out by critics as a "free market failure," right? [/tangent]

---

As someone seeking a tattoo or a piercing, it is your responsibility, not the government's, to ensure you find an artistically talented and cleanliness-conscious artist. Don't be a cheapskate on your permanent art injections.

So what's the point?

This core principle applies to many different topics, including drugs, alcohol, guns, bump stocks, cars, your home, your marriage, your business, where you buy food, and every other thing politicians say you need them to control. Regulation is never about your safety, it's about gaining power over your life. Interventionists are your enemies no matter what excuse they use to justify their meddling.

Even in the "land of the free" where I live, the arbitrary dictates of politicians have declared innumerable innocent people to be "criminals" simply because they own the "wrong" inanimate objects, consume "forbidden" substances, or just fail to "properly" apply for permission to go about the kinds of day-to-day productive activities people have been doing since prehistory.

"But there oughtta be a law!"

"That should be illegal!"

If those are your instinctive reactions to peaceful people doing things you may dislike or outright oppose with their own lives and property, realize you are instinctively acting like a petty tyrant, and rethink your position. Otherwise, you're a pompous busybody control freak, and that makes you the bad guy no matter how self-righteous you feel. So stow it, and mind your own business like an adult.