So, the people here are generally opposed to the Chinese State prohibiting "minors" from playing video games at certain times, yet I routinely see threads on this same forum extolling the virtues of the State using force to stop people from drinking soda, and other such silly notions. It seems like this previous post of mine, in action; namely, what is the principle via which these people determine when the State can intervene, and when it can not?

Of course, the principle is obvious: State actors are justified in acting if they are carrying out some protection of a natural right, which you have delegated to them-- otherwise, they are not only unjustified in acting, and in fact are being violent and thuggish.

I don't have the natural right to disable a teenager's internet access, which is his property, so how could I delegate that right to the State? The same applies to soda-- if I were to attack someone so I could pry their beverage out of their hands, I would quite rightly be tried in a court and convicted of assault. But if I'm a State agent, I suddenly can assault them with no negative ramifications-- from where did I obtain the authority, if not via delegation?