Plus your idea is even more vulnerable to utility monsters than utilitarianism since it only requires people with moderate unusual or nosy preferences ...snip...

That might be what you imagine "my" idea to involve, but it isn't.

There is a perfectly sensible, rational way to determine if people's supposed hurt feelings impose actual costs: ask them to pay to ameliorate them. Dislike watching gay folks kiss? Pay them not to. (I dislike watching anybody kiss - that's just me - but not enough to be prepared to pay to reduce the incidence of public displays of affection).

What's that? There are folks who are genuinely harmed, but don't have the budget to pay for amelioration? That's too bad - and it's certainly not a basis for permitting the creation of (or continued existence of) an entity whose purposes have - always and everywhere - been captured and perverted, and ruined every economic system in history.

And not for nothin'... it's all fine and dandy to blithely declare that "high powered people cannot necessarily step lightly" as if that disposes of 500 years worth of academic literature criticising the theoretical basis for the State: at this point in time no State is raining death on your neighbourhood (but yours is probably using your taxes - plus debt written in your name - to rain death on others).

Let's by all means have a discussion on the idea that the non-initiation of force is 'unworkable' - that's the same line of reasoning that declared that without the Church holding a monopoly to furnish moral guidance, we would all descend to amoral barbarism. These days churches are voluntary (and Popes still live in palaces) - and violent crime is on a secular downtrend that has lasted the best part of a century. And so it will be when the State goes away.