There's a common notion in the minds of terrible people that if a practice is foolish then it should be forbidden. This crops up especially in politics: not wearing your seatbelt is stupid and dangerous so it should be illegal, not evacuating your house when there's a hurricane coming is stupid and dangerous so it should be illegal, houses that don't meet certain safety standards are dangerous so building them should be illegal, etc. But even beyond how all of those argument are flagrantly disregarding the concept of Consent, there's another fallacy going on here: not considering what the word "required" entails.

If you want to require someone to do something, there are two ways to do it. Either you make them physically incapable of defying you, which is impossible in all of the above situations; or you punish them when they do defy you, so that they stop doing it. The latter method, of course, is how all governments operate: if you do something that endangers you and only you then they'll take your money or put you in a cage. Would anyone argue when asked outright that it's somehow moral to do those things to someone else for not wearing their fucking seatbelt, or for building an unsafe house and selling it while making it clear to their customers that the house doesn't meet the safety standards?

Stop fucking voting for innocent people to be put in cages in the name of "safety".

statism - ideas so good they have to be mandatory

(I would credit, but I can't find who made that)