Meade: People who are injured as a result of their risky behaviors not only cause harm to themselves but, because we all have important ties to other people, inevitably impose emotional and financial costs on others.
Conclusion (therefore)
To protect the interests of others, governments are justified in outlawing behavior that puts one's own health at risk.
Evidence
People who put themselves at risk and injure themselves inevitably impose emotional and financial costs on others.
Evaluate
If I'm your friend, and I buy a motorcycle, and 3 rad months later I end up in the ER with twenty broken bones, you are going to be emotionally taxed by worrying about me. You may even have to bring me soup.
Similarly, society is subsidizing my hospital bills with its tax dollars. So my risk-taking imposed financial and emotional costs on others.
The author is saying,
That seems like a pretty harsh leap, right? We don't want the government to outlaw any risky behavior that could lead to injury (goodbye, dreams of winning Steeplechase competitions).
Goal
Let's look for a principle that stands up for our rights to engage in risky behavior with our own bodies. Since this principle is meant to weaken the argument, it should help us argue that "governments shouldn't outlaw risky behaviors."