While very hard to proof, there are quite some indications such as the high number of imprisoned people with ASPD (sorry but the completely broken US prison and police system is can't be generalized to other places) or the likely high number of people with ASDP working as investment bankers, that make me believe the overall damage caused is probably even higher than that of pedophiles.
OK, so then your source for believing that people with ASPD cause damage amounts to a hunch backed up by the fact that people with ASPD are over-represented in the prison system. I note what you said about people with ASPD as investment bankers: you said
likely, i.e. this isn't a fact, it's just something that you believe.
It's true that the U.S. prison system is unusually bad, but the ultimate reason for what happens to black people in the U.S. is racism, which is far worse in the U.S. than many other parts of the world. This isn't because the U.S. is particularly special in this regard. Considering how universal sanism is, I don't see any reason for the effect of the U.S. criminal justice system to be any worse for people with ASPD than other parts of the world (or at least, other parts of the world influenced by European culture). And since things that I don't consider to be wrong or harmful (like stealing or destroying rich people's private property) are illegal in these other societies as well, I cannot accept high levels of imprisonment as a proxy for evilness or harm in any society. Without additional information, it fails to capture the full story. You also have to account for other factors that could lead to the outcome, as I mentioned.
So taking that in mind, the common flu argument falls short and it should rather be compared to Covid-19 or maybe Ebola
I strongly disagree unless you can provide some very clear evidence that a person having ASPD will regularly lead to death or other severe harm for other people (after controlling for other factors). Even the flu comparison is unfair to ASPD because flu does kill people. And there's also the fact that ASPD is lifelong, while nearly any illness brought about by a pathogen (with some exceptions, like herpes and HIV) goes away after a relatively short period of time.
In fact, that brings up an important point: diseases like herpes and HIV, which are lifelong, are probably a far more useful comparison. HIV can even lead to serious harm including death. But we don't ban people with HIV engaging in sexual activity, for instance, or imprison them in hospitals on the off-chance they accidentally infect someone else. We trust people with HIV to make the right decisions to protect their partners, and we help them do so e.g. by providing access to condoms.
In any case, the only reason we ever imprison a physically ill person, or otherwise take away their human rights, is (as with ebola or, at the moment, COVID-19) there is very, very good evidence that it's the only way to protect others, and we only do so for as long as is necessary to protect others. That's why flu - which, again, is a deadly disease - is not treated that way. It's why HIV - again, a deadly disease - is not treated that way. By contrast, COVID-19 is somewhat treated that way because we're in the middle of a pandemic (and therefore COVID-19 is especially harmful in the moment), and Ebola might be treated that way simply because there's no cure for Ebola and anyone who gets it is very likely to die no matter what is done. I would contend that, on this spectrum, ASPD and even pedophilia (which I contend is far more likely to be harmful than ASPD, since pedophilia creates a far more specific tendency to do a far more specific bad thing) are closer to the flu and HIV end of the spectrum, and I'm not aware of any mental illness that belongs on the COVID-19 and Ebola end of the spectrum.
in my view discrimination is not something that the government does or which is official public policy.
Erm, no, many governments specifically create allowances for taking away the rights of mentally ill people and allowing some other person to make that person's decisions. Claiming that this is not discrimination is rather like claiming that African slavery in the United States was not government discrimination because it was the slave owners who enacted power over the slaves. No, if the government specifically allows one person to take away the rights of another person, and it's based on the demographics of that other person, that's governmental discrimination. The fact that it's by proxy is not morally distinguishing.
Also, I mentioned this before, but practicing eugenics via forced sterilization is perfectly legal in the United States because of a Supreme Court ruling which stated that "three generations of imbeciles is enough". The practice
is discriminatory (usually targeting mentally ill or otherwise neurodivergent people of color), and the fact that the government doesn't directly mandate it but "only" allows it doesn't make the government any less complicit when it's clear that forced sterilization is always a discriminatory practice.
However, if you enforce a extreme rights based approach to prevent this kind of discrimination and do not offer some other satisfying (and hopefully more humane) solution to manage what these people perceive as a problem, they tend to get really upset and as a result harsh laws and populist policies tend to arise that are *much* worse for the effected persons than the previous discrimination.
OK, let's go back into history here. Nazi Germany. The Weimar Republic did not enact sweeping protections of Jewish people that made Nazis angry. Jewish people were discriminated against very badly for decades, with the earliest concentration camps opening long before the Nazis rose to power. And the genocide itself started small, with forced sterilization of disabled people being one of the earliest examples of genocide in that time period.
There has never been a time in history when "too" progressive policies defending the rights of a minority has led to backlash that makes everything worse. Backlash tends to occur with sudden
visibility of a minority that the general public was not thinking about. That's why violence against transgender people has become more prominent in the last couple decades: we didn't gain much of anything in the way of new rights and protections, we just became a hell of a lot more visible because we're managing to survive more easily (because of a removal of certain policies which, decades ago, made it basically impossible to be "approved" to transition without being very passing and completely straight).
The only thing that can ease the minds of bigots who want people they hate out of their sight is to hide them, or to kill them. That's why concentration camps exist; they hide what a bigoted society doesn't want to see, be that Jewish people in Nazi Germany, or Mexicans in the current United States, or Japanese people in the U.S. during WW2. But the experience of Nazi Germany shows that this does not work. Jewish people were discriminated against harshly in Weimar Germany, but it did absolutely nothing to stop the atrocities of the Nazi party. If anything, it enabled them.
EDIT: I also want to add one more tidbit: if society discriminates against mentally ill people with "measures", that enables the view that mentally ill people are a "problem". So I fully expect that they would create
more discrimination and
more violence against mentally ill people, not less, even if there weren't so much historical precedent (not only Nazi Germany, but the Jim Crow era in the U.S. also comes to mind) to support that conclusion.