He was one of the first people to complain about the increasing encroachment of the state into personal lives, but, actually, shouldn't there be a little more encroachment, when it came to things like this? Where was the protective fence, or the safety net? They made it hard for you to jump off bridges, or to smoke, to own a gun, to become a gynecologist. So how come they let you walk out on a stable, functioning relationship? They shouldn't. If this didn't work out, he could see himself become a homeless, jobless alcoholic within a year. And that would be worse for his health than a packet of Malboros.
The quote highlights a paradox regarding state intervention in personal choices. While the individual raises concerns over the government's growing influence in private matters, they question why there isn't more oversight in significant life decisions, such as leaving a healthy relationship. They point out the strict regulations around seemingly less critical activities like smoking or owning a gun, implying that protective measures should also apply to personal well-being and stability.
This perspective emphasizes the potential consequences of personal freedom, suggesting that a choice to walk away from a stable relationship could lead to drastic life changes, such as homelessness and addiction. The speaker reflects on the precarious nature of life choices, indicating that the risks associated with one’s personal decisions can be as detrimental as those regulated by authorities, thus warranting some form of societal protection or guidance.