I would like to start a conversation about indirect consequences.
While Libertarians protest the negative indirect consequences of governmental actions, I hardly hear about the negative indirect consequences of economic and social activity. The people of the United States are both citizens and consumers, amongst other things. We need to realize that "unintended consequences" is a phenomena in the private sector, not just the public sector.
My moral argument for the morality of regulating the indirect consequences allowed for both public and private economic activity is two fold.
#1-- I have a right to protect myself from experiencing the indirect consequences of other people's economic and social activity, and not just to be merely compensated for property damage after the fact.
#2-- Those people who find the regulations in an area to be difficult or even immoral can use the political process to change the regulations, or they can simply leave and go live where the regulations are more to their liking.