[Retra]

I would say your moral failing is thinking that "others" is somehow separable from "self" in the abstract. If I can decide for myself, then I can certainly decide for others: that's the whole reason I want to be good at making decisions. If I'm only allowed to decide things for myself, then what's the point? I'm basically a corpse who hasn't gotten cold yet. In what way should I contribute to the betterment of human life, if I can't tell other people what I've learned that they should do?

You are an individual. But you're also a member of your family, a member of your country, a member of your species, and a living creature. Your identify is not confined to your individuality. You speak English not because of your individuality, but because of your culture. It is as much a part of you as you of it.

With that said, you have a responsibility to decide what others should do. You have a responsibility to make sure those decisions are correct, and a responsibility to enforce them insofar as they are correct and such enforcement doesn't undermine our humanitarian goals. And instead of being overly-conservative in the face of the possibility that you are mistake, take comfort in knowing that experiments can fail, and that this doesn't mean they shouldn't be undertaken. Make decisions, enforce them, and if they're wrong, you change your mind later. The only alternative is stagnation or 'progress by accident'.

>In any case, I do think that we should strive toward having just a bare minimum of laws.

Why should this take priority over having the most correct laws?