It would seem that the issue in dispute is whether a law can be stupid without also violating essential liberty in some way.

I think we can agree that all laws that violate essential liberty are intrinsically stupid.

Let's not examine it too closely, though, lest we uncover that republics may, in fact, be designed to protect the privileges of the land-owning elites from the sheer numbers of the unwashed rabble, and the defense of their essential liberties may only be a beneficial side effect.