He told me I shouldn’t be eating nachos. I told him he shouldn’t be sleeping with multiple partners.

He said it was none of my business. I said I’d trade him my nacho privacy for his lifestyle privacy.

He said the nachos were different.

“How’s that?” I asked.

He said food like nachos increases everybody’s healthcare costs.

“And your lifestyle doesn’t?” I countered.

His name is Jerry. He was the facilitator at a workshop for people living with sexually transmitted diseases.

He had several, and his explanation of how to handle the associated health-related matters made it clear he was not monogamous.

I was an escapee from another workshop in the same hotel and had found the only decent couch in the vicinity.

It was close to the open door of this man’s workshop. He was definitely more interesting than the lady teaching about changes in estate tax law.

The Energizer Bunny on Red Bull would have fallen asleep in her workshop.

So there I was with my nachos during his mid-morning break — a bull’s-eye in the dartboard of his life.

I agreed with him that nachos are a terrible food choice when consumed on a regular basis. He sat down.

I confided in him that my motivation to stay healthy and my strong preference for fresh food usually overrides junk food indulgence.

But what if I hated to cook or wasn’t very good at it?

What if I preferred a maple bar for breakfast instead of the healthy selection I prepared this morning?

Frankly, I should be able to eat whatever I choose … and be willing to pay for the healthcare costs associated with a bad diet.

But the costs of my choices should not be passed on to others, I surmised out loud.

He looked puzzled and slightly amused.

I asked Jerry if he would be willing to pay for the healthcare costs associated with his high-risk lifestyle.

Paraphrasing for the sake of courtesy, he said I had no business sticking my nose into his bedroom.

I explained that I’d prefer to stay far away from his bedroom, except he forces me to pay for his choices.

Under our current government regulatory scheme, healthcare costs are shifted from the high-risk people to others who make different decisions about risk.

Since I had his complete attention, I decided to probe one layer deeper. I asked him if he was sympathetic to the movement that would regulate the food industry into providing “healthy” products only.

He lit up like a 49-watt halogen bulb when he said “yes.” He gave several reasons why it was necessary.

He saw no legitimate difference between plain-English disclosure to consumers who could then make their own decisions versus removing their choices altogether.

He argued that most people don’t know what’s good for them, and eating better would cut down on national healthcare costs; therefore, government mandates are necessary.

Hmmmm.

I can’t print some of our conversation. But it caught his attention enough for him to give me two minutes of his time to make my case.

He leaned forward with interest and with no malice in his eyes. Our conversation went something like this:

“You know the grim statistics about having multiple partners, many of whom have a sexually transmitted disease. The resultant healthcare costs are very high for you, but also for everybody else who makes different choices, but has to pay for yours.

“Using your nacho analogy, perhaps most people don’t really know what’s good for them when it comes to sex.

And the decisions some people make drive up healthcare costs for everyone. So government should force all Americans to be abstinent until a monogamous partner can be found who meets government’s regulatory guidelines.”

He chuckled.

“It’s dangerous to give government so much power that its public officials can decide what I can eat and what you can do behind closed doors. You’ll only like that model when your friends are in power and your choices are politically protected.”

He sat up very straight.

“If you want me to stay out of your bedroom, quit asking me to pay for the consequences of your choices. We should foot the bill for our own lifestyle decisions, because most of us will do more of what is good for us while figuring out that the cost of some of our choices is just too high. It’s a human nature thing.”

Now he was annoyed.

“Personally, I don’t like your choices. But you’re an adult; I’m not your mother. I want the right to plead with you to reconsider. I want you to have the right to tell me to mind my own business. And while you might not even like me or my personal beliefs very much, I’m one of the best political friends you’ll ever have.”

The silence that followed was long. Then he said, “You have really agitated me.”

And I understood what he meant.

A person who genuinely seeks truth will find it, regardless of where the search begins. It would have been easier for him to have gone on unconfronted, just like it would have been easier for me a few decades ago.

He will either have to numb himself to the ideas behind what he experienced, or he will be agitated even more in the months to come.

We tend to ignore consequences of an over-reaching government when the people in power at the time are willing to protect our personal values.

After all, some behaviors and decisions could undermine our very existence. But this is a dangerous path.

Government officials were never meant to have jurisdiction over the realms best left to individuals, families and religious institutions.

A paternalistic state is not benign. A state with the power to take care of us in our old age, fix our mortgage, manage our healthcare and intervene in our credit card debt will eventually tell us what we can eat, how we can live and what we can say.

We live in dangerous times. But it’s less because of the enormous, unsustainable costs of government; less because of our malevolent sworn enemies around the world; more because we are letting government erode the essential strength and nature of our country.

Self-governance is the indispensible lifeblood of our constitutional republic, and free people will define it differently.

Some people’s choices will be corrosive. So what should we do?

If we narrow the gap between the choices we make and taking personal responsibility for their consequences, will this be an adequate safety net?

What do you think?

Jerry, my new friend from the conference, has called me since. He’s in the bull’s-eye of the dartboard of my life.

I don’t know what Jerry will decide, but he’s still agitated and getting worse every day. That’s a good sign.

With genuine humility and concern for the personal well-being of others, I hope we will agitate as many people as possible toward the self-governance true liberty requires.

Lynn Harsh is chief executive officer of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.