The scale is simple, and the reason I pointed the whole thing out is because of the consequences of letting such things go with out expanding on them.
If you start to argue with someone who advocates government interference in private agreements about whether or not those effects are beneficial or detrimental, you have already allowed that person to change the subject and have in effect conceded that the government has the legitimate power to do so. The main argument is already lost in that case.
For this reason, it should never be left unchallenged. That was my reason for drawing the line I did.
We agree on the effects but I will never allow them to start the argument from a false premise.
In a free society, the government, (or anyone else, group or individual) would never be allowed to interfere at gunpoint.
In an "unfree" society, such practices are common and the result has been the ruination of those societies.
Um...OK (backing away slowly).