Final answer:
The contested idea across the stories is the support for government intervention to solve social problems, such as in the form of prohibition. Other authors would likely find such measures disagreeable, supporting personal responsibility and freedom over state-mandated regulations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The idea from "Three Cheers for the Nanny State" that would be unacceptable to the authors of the other two stories is likely the support for government intervention to solve social problems, such as through prohibition or other forms of regulation. These stories generally promote a notion of personal responsibility and the value of freedom over restrictive laws. This is in contrast with the perspective that embraces state intervention as a solution to societal issues.
From the given extracts, it appears that efforts to solve social problems by means like outlawing the sale of alcohol or banning prostitution would likely be disapproved by Smiles, who might argue for personal responsibility rather than governmental bans. The rejection of prohibition, viewed as a failure in one narrative, exemplifies the belief that state intervention does not effectively address social issues and can even lead to worse outcomes. Similarly, the emphasis on political philosophy highlights the tension between who decides the laws, suggesting unease with a strong state controlling personal choices.
Therefore, government intervention, especially in matters of personal choice and freedom, would be the contested idea, as evidenced by the agreement on the necessity for individual liberties and skepticism towards the effectiveness of a nanny state.