Attacker = Overreeaching Govt/Collectivism. Victim = Individual.

> how does that respond to my point?

You just asked an individual to justify why its not okey for govt/people to interfere between two consenting adults.

But then I think the debate would turn into battle of axioms which is pointless.

The question should be, can/how would people with contradictory political axioms co-exist ? I think its not possible, people can only vote with feet and hope for best. Political debate is not an intellectual debate like scientific/programming debate but war with real losses and HN now is a battlefield.

Ah, I understand. I disagree with the analogy then. If the two consenting adults are not harming each other they can still be a liability to other people. Risk can be introduced indirectly even if no individual is directly harmed. How can you adjust your analogy to account for that?

As I said this is battle of axioms. The issue cannot be solved with debate.