Taking a wider interpretation of the harm principle: Discriminating people for what they are (deadly skin emissions aside; I challenge you to come up with a re

Taking a wider interpretation of the harm principle: Discriminating people for what they are (deadly skin emissions aside; I challenge you to come up with a real-world example) doesn't feel fair, neither to those who are being discriminated against nor the population in general. Unfair constructs in the society are likely to cause overall harm in the long term (if nothing else, the society is unlikely to extract the full potential of those who feel unjustly treated by it). So you'd have to have some benefits that are greater (or greater harm avoided) than the likely harm to justify causing that harm. So voluntaryness is not irrelevant, with a footnote that there might exist a case where it needs to be weighted against other factors.