Murder isn't illegal because we want to protect people from the results of their actions, it's illegal because we want to protect people from the actions of others. (Or, failing to do that, punish the aggressors in response) Surely you see the difference?

Basically, the argument is that people's liberty should only be restricted up to the point of defending the liberty and rights of others. If an action hurts no one other than its actor, the state has no right to restrict them. People should be free to live in line with their wishes and conscience up to the point of not violating the rights of others.

With regard to seatbelt laws, I would ask the same question, as I do think that the seatbelt laws are also paternalism and morally wrong.

Who gets to decide what is 'predatory' and why do those people have the right to make decisions in place of able-minded adults?

As he already said, they're almost always run as a very detached thing, run by professionals with no connection to the family, other than the transaction.

I don't see how the distinction is material.

If an employer did the same thing, would you argue that's also not discriminatory? Or, to pick a notorious example, if a cake shop only agreed to sell to straight couples, would that be the same? If not, why not?

And b) about on par with saying "water is evil" because if you drink too much of it you'll die.

If you have a headache, it's totally fine to take a painkiller. (If it happens on a regular basis, eg at least once a week, it can be a good idea to get those different pills from a neurologist, because the two main painkillers have bad side effects in the long run, but those different pills are just "masking" it in a different way)