[Big Papa Goat]

Of course there's something wrong about what happened, a guy broke his face. I mean, it's bad when someones face is broken. It basically shouldn't happen, and just because it was his own fault doesn't make a difference in that regard. From my perspective, it would seem that someone broke someones face, it just happens that the second 'somoene' is the same as the first. Pretty much just as bad as someone breaking someone elses face, because in both situations, you've got someone breaking a face, and someone with a broken face.
From a liberal perspective, if individual liberty is the only thing that counts, then I guess there's no justification for helmet laws, but that's only if individual liberty is the only thing that counts. If public safety counts for anything on its own, then something like a helmet law is a reasonable measure. Practically speaking it's not a significant reduction of freedom, and if your talking about public safety as being important, then there's no compelling reason to protect people from their own decisions any less than from anyone elses decisions.

I guess paternal laws like that have to stop when they become unreasonable, which sounds like a bit of a cop out, but basically if you have an understanding of how important freedom is and how important public safety is, you should be able to figure this sort of thing out. Like with the helmet law, it's reasonable because going out and buying a helmet is a pretty small thing to have to do, helmets aren't that expensive, and you can basically do all the things you would otherwise do when you're wearing a helmet. And helmets are really good for safety, they help a lot. So given a situation where the benefit to safety so much outweighs the costs to freedom, then you can basically say that unless safety has extremly limited importance compared to freedom, then it's a reasonable law. Banning fatty foods is unreasonable, because factually speaking, eating a hamburger is not an immediate and obvious risk, and it's a pretty big limit to peoples' freedom to tell them they can never eat this or that.
I know this all sounds simplistic and kind of dumb, but my big point is that with questions like this it's all a matter of having an understanding of the importance of the values in question, and then just having an understanding of the significance of the particular issues to the values in question, and then basically weighing them out. Saying that as a general principle 'the government should never do such a thing as this' is a pretty simple way to look at politics. Limiting the governments activity to the promotion of freedom as a principle isn't practically going to limit much, it's just going to expand the rhetorical meaning of freedom. The only practical limit will be on things that can't be rhetorically argued for, like helmet laws that are clearly issues where freedom is opposed to some other value.