Ding!

That has been true for all of human history. Things will not change by simply replacing the man on top or the majority in congress. Being ruled by lunatics is why we had a Constitution that (used to) sharply limit the powers of a federal government. The “Public Good” will always be twisted and bastardized by whomever happens to be on top at the time to benefit a few at the expense of others. That is definately not what the founding fathers where thinking of when they put the general welfare clause in the constitution.

You are asking me: Is it ok to deny someone’s pleasure in favor of someone else’s inalienable right (to be free from violence or the threat thereof)? And I would answer you: unequivocally, yes.

And in your reversal of my question, is that I don’t believe it is ever acceptable in a free, lawful society, to violate one man’s rights in favor of another man’s whims, desires, wishes, etc. Not ever.

Fortunately, most tradeoffs aren’t like this. Most are like, “Is it worth denying a sick subset of men the sexual pleasure associated with raping young girls ( boys, cows, etc.) in order to protect the well-being of the girl, boy, cow, pig, etc.

The vast majority of public good questions are no brainers. (See 10 commandments.)

We have to examine the vulgar use of force at play here, against law-abiding citizens, I might add, and the complete lack of the right to self-determination for which our forefathers fought and died.