This article is written in English for international readers.
This article explores the idea in more abstract terms.
For a more personal reflection, see the previous essay here.
Debates around indulgence regulation have become increasingly visible in recent years.
From sugar taxes to restrictions on gambling and alcohol, governments—especially in the UK and Europe—are once again being accused of acting like a “nanny state.”
The usual argument is simple:
Regulation limits personal freedom. Adults should be allowed to make their own choices.
At first glance, this sounds reasonable.
But when I read about these policies, my reaction is not anger. It is something closer to relief.
What Is Indulgence Regulation?
Indulgence regulation refers to policies that limit or discourage consumption of products considered harmful when overused—such as sugary foods, alcohol, tobacco, or gambling services.
Supporters argue these measures reduce long-term health and social costs.
Critics argue they undermine individual responsibility and freedom of choice.
This debate is not new, and it is not limited to one country.
What interests me is not which side is “right,” but an assumption both sides often share.
The Ideal of Freedom
Freedom, in modern societies, is often treated as an unquestionable good.
More options. Fewer restrictions. Maximum choice.
But this ideal quietly assumes something important:
that people are capable of regulating themselves.
Freedom works beautifully—if you have strong self-control.
When Self-Control Is Not a Given
Not everyone does.
Some people are more impulsive.
Some struggle with habits, cravings, or emotional regulation.
Some are simply bad at stopping themselves once something pleasurable is easily available.
This is rarely discussed in moral debates.
A lack of self-control is often framed as a personal failure rather than a human variation.
For people like this, unlimited choice does not always feel empowering.
It can feel exhausting.
When Regulation Feels Like Support
From that perspective, regulation does not always feel like oppression.
Sometimes, it feels like friction—and friction can be helpful.
Small barriers slow decisions down.
Higher prices, limits, or extra steps introduce a pause.
That pause can be the difference between intention and regret.
For some people, regulation is not a cage.
It is a handrail.
This Is Not an Argument Against Freedom
To be clear, this is not a call for heavy-handed control.
Regulation can be misused. Power can overreach. Choice still matters.
But the idea that freedom is universally beneficial deserves questioning.
When freedom assumes a level of self-discipline that not everyone possesses,
it quietly excludes the people who struggle the most.
A Question Worth Asking
Perhaps the real issue is not whether regulation limits freedom.
Perhaps the better question is this:
Who is freedom actually designed for?
And what happens to those of us who find it hard to live up to its demands?
I do not have a clean answer.
But I suspect the debate becomes more honest once we admit that freedom, like regulation, is not experienced equally by everyone.
Thank you for reading this article.
If you are new here, you can explore more beginner-friendly articles in English.
t-kuma.net
t-kuma.net
If you found this article helpful, interesting, or relatable, would you consider supporting my survival and activity?
You can support my survival challenge through two ways:
1. U.S. Amazon Affiliate: If you are outside Japan, or prefer another way to support me, please click my Amazon link below. It doesn't matter what you buy; simply clicking the link and purchasing any item on Amazon helps sustain my life. I will be genuinely grateful for any commission received.
2. Japanese Banner:Please click the support banner below (Japanese ad). Every click contributes approximately one Japanese yen to my necessary living funds.
Purchase on Amazon here (Sorry. Image not displayed)
Crystal Geyser, Alpine Spring Water Natural, 30pk
