This is the basis of constitutional government. Just holding a minority opinion doesn't necessarily mean the majority can't constrain your behavior with force.
For example, if I hold the minority opinion that "killing people for no reason is fine," then it isn't a violation of my freedom for the non-homicidal majority to arrest me.
Constitutional government includes a series of guarantees about what can't be done to minorities, and also usually includes checks and balances on the majority's power to prevent rash action.
"What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning?"
The answer is that all governmental programs are justified as long as they improve the public welfare. Those you have listed would not.
The fundamental difference is that in the progressive model the market is not the be-all-end-all of politics, it is just a means used to accomplish an end. The economy exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
""Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism." And some sex is necessary to keep your virginity."
Pretty much everyone on either side of the left-ride divide agrees about the need for the modern welfare state, even if they disagree about the extent. Communist orators used to draw crowds of tens of thousands before the New Deal.
"You take an unprincipled approach that scales to tyranny."
Your pure libertarianism scales to a far more direct form of tyranny, and doesn't come with the niceties of constitutional protections. What's the market rate on a police force? An army? A life?
It's the exact opposite. A constitutional republic maintains that holding the majority opinion does not justify force.
If you don't understand this, you don't understand anything about the US.
Your examples are ridiculous. Stopping violence is not violence.
"Pretty much everyone on either side of the left-ride divide agrees about the need for the modern welfare state, even if they disagree about the extent"
You really don't know anything about this, do you? Who exactly do you think you're talking to if not someone who disagrees with that sentiment?
This thread is over.
If you don't like the previous (perfectly valid) example, how about one that doesn't involve violence on the part of the perpetrator? Perhaps theft, or public nudity.
The point is that everything a state does is ultimately based on force. The whole point of preventing tyranny of the majority is to ensure that the only actions are taken are taken for the good of everyone, rather than a specific sect. It has nothing to do with denying the legitimacy of taxation.
It seems to me you don't understand the basic concept of a constitutional state. Reread On Liberty and Federalist #10.
"Who exactly do you think you're talking to if not someone who disagrees with that sentiment?"
I was pointing out exactly how far outside the terms of legitimate debate you actually are.
Now the thread is over.
You just said: 'the minorities are protected, and that means force can be used on them.' It's a clear contradiction.
What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning? Why doesn't the government start controlling or "guaranteeing" super markets, car dealerships, or house construction?
You take an unprincipled approach that scales to tyranny.
"For example, asserting a right to health care provides more output for the society, as it takes away from the costs of untreated illnesses"
That is complete unvalidated. Where is the evidence? Keep in mind, the comparison is to health with government management and with individual decision making (and not government coverage vs. none). One huge fallacy specific to health care is that health does not equal medical treatment. So you can't equate a dollar paid for medical treatment and a dollar improved in value of health.
"Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism."
And some sex is necessary to keep your virginity. Corporations that accumulate government power usually do so because of unprincipled approaches to what the government should and shouldn't be doing. Look up the history of railroads in the US, and specifically the rise of the Interstate Commerce Commission. A government entity went out of it's bounds to "protect" the people, and the new power was taken over by the rail companies. It's exactly what I mentioned before: What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning? And then who do you think is going to control it? Our benevolent senators? Or the people with a $$$ interest?
For health coverage, lots of policy decisions make much more sense if you just consider the AMA the largest and most powerful union in the US. They act for the benefit of themselves, and not their patients, often doing so with government force. One example, two words: drug war.