> What is the benefit? A sense of self-righteousness?

The benefit is adhering to a set of principles that guard against committing atrocities that have already cost countless millions of lives. Unprincipled people driven by utilitarian objectives have done by far the most harm in human history. The Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution, the Holodomor, the Great Purge, the Cambodian genocide, on and on the list goes.

There is no mechanism to constrain authority so concentrated. It always goes horribly wrong. Democracies elect genocidal dictators. The only solution that has been proven to work in the medium term is a regard for individual autonomy as sacrosanct and inviolable. I'm concerned at the erosion of this principle.

I would rather have a thousand robber barons and school shooters than one Cultural Revolution. If you're preparing kill an innocent person, no matter your motivation, you're always the bad guy. The ends do not justify the means.

> China is plenty innovative, as far as I can tell.

What ground-breaking innovations that changed the shape of the world originated in China? Usable smart phones? Social media? Ride hailing? Online shopping? Mass-market electric vehicles? Self-landing rockets? That's all just California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_cou... This isn't a coincidence.

> where Pinkertons brutalized union organizers and robber barons had the US Army drop munitions on striking coal miners

You're citing cases where the state failed to intervene to protect the physical safety it guarantees. Where it failed to uphold the very principles it espouses. These errors are far easier to correct than trying to convince some maniac that their utilitarian calculation is wrong. Also, the harm done by these failures is immeasurably less than the aforementioned genocides.

> I won't concede to let evil happen simply out of respect for someone else's belief that evil things are actually good.

You have to define evil though. Would you care to suggest a definition? It's not a synonym of suffering.

> what about the right to freedom from treatable illness?

What is the source of this right? Why is your right to be treated more important than a doctor's right to choose whom to treat? Does it just stem from some back-of-the-envelope calculation that we're all better off if we use a bit of force to compel others to pay for your care? Can't you use the same sort of math to demand a kidney transplant from an unwilling donor? Or to euthanize the mentally ill? Or those who disagree with you? Where does it stop?

> a consequence of the personal choice to smoke

> poverty is a significant cause of substance abuse issues

These are incompatible statements. People have agency, and the responsibility for an action lies wholly with the agent who took it. The difference between forcing someone to do something and convincing them is of kind (categorical), not of degree.

> People ultimately do not always have the power to live a healthy lifestyle

I agree, but I'm saying that your good luck to be born into a healthy body, with a capable mind, or into a stable family, belongs to you. It is no more within the purview of authority to redistribute than your kidney.

> "freedom-based rights" designed to specifically protect insurance companies and high-bracket taxpayers

They are designed to protect the capable and the fortunate, who exist in all tax brackets, from the shackles you would impose on them. In doing so we safeguard against the disastrous consequences of the concentration of power, and create an environment that fosters the innovation which has benefitted us all.