The question is, if i preferred not to fund the net would you extend the same respect to me that i extended to you by not using violence to try to prevent you from funding it and not use violence against me to try to force me to pay for the net? (I would if it were empirically demonstrated to be truly effective and well tuned like you say, but lets say i wouldn’t just for the sake of the argument).
For first, I am not sure I understood your sentence, so please correct me if I am wrong.
If you don't want to fund the net, no problem. You're out of the equation. You don't want to participate, then if you fall down, I won't help you, I let you die in the street if that happens (it would require people to know what to answer to their son asking 'dad, why he is dying and no one does a thing?' but that should be easy).
That's a contract, you refused it (because you gambled you would not need it of for whatever reason). No problem here. So, yes, I would respect and respectfully let you die
I have to say I have a problem with "society should protect people even against themselves" ( common interventionists trope). I consider society should protect people against lack of sufficient information to make an informed decision. But once it is done, its everyone's business.
) to be sure nobody use it illegally is ok ?