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?
> 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.