@Hyolobrika the seatbelt was just an example. my self perception is not “the nanny state changed its mind and ticketed me, so i conformed”, but “well, actually, it’s right on the merits” and so eventually i did conform. but i don’t know my behavioral shift ever would have happened if norms broadly hadn’t shifted, and i do attribute norms broadly shifting to a campaign by the state (which included the laws under which i was ticketed). 1/

@Hyolobrika smoking norms are a more “ethical” example, in the sense of affecting others. when i was a kid, people could smoke anywhere, and objecting (except apologetically, referring to some very personal special circumstance like asthma) seemed more like imposing on others’ legitimate rights than defending ones own. as laws changed, norms changed sharply. now even without overt objection, exposing others to second-hand smoke requires permission, or seems a violation. 2/

@Hyolobrika norm changes, of course, happen all the time, and can be independent of state action. but in that case, smoking was a pretty entrenched habit, and attempts to shift those norms without the state putting a thumb on the scale by regulating smoking out of most shared public spaces would i think have been unlikely. 3/

@Hyolobrika (during the transition in the US, there were lots of quotes by restauranteurs saying that they thought the non-smoking regime was better, but they would never have unilaterally shifted to it, because parties with a even one smoker would disprefer their restaurants in ways that parties with nonsmokers, then accustomed to tolerating smoke, would not insist.) /fin