But we've been around the track before on this, and it simply does not comport with how people behave. We don't leave things up to individual desires--you get a lot of sub-optimal Prisoner's Dilemma situations that way. We collectively decide what to do with criminals; we neither say, "Oh, we leave that up to their individual desires," nor do we say, "Well, if it is your desire to bash the criminal's head in, go for it!"

The consequences of that proposal yield outcomes that are so clearly wrong that one can explain it to people well enough so that they will (usually) no longer desire it once the understand the situation adequately. Most people aren't Cypher from The Matrix.

And so, having learned that the consequences are bad, people paradoxically no longer individually desire it. (Except for a few anarchists who resolutely maintain that all the awful consequences of anarchism in practice are because there are still vestigial traces of structure.)

Individual desire is too smart, typically, to go for "individual desire". Individual desire is to understand what the heck is going on and meet the challenges and goals together. It remains to be seen whether or not we will coalesce around a conscious recognition of the overarching goal (or, more precisely, the mechanics that led to the evolution of goal-states) that the universe imposes upon us. But it's very clear that morality is about group behavior. Unconstrained individual desire is not what's going on here.