Posted on 06/28/2006 9:47:25 AM PDT by dead
Yes, it does. The story reads like more black on white crime being covered up by the media by not reporting the race of perpetrator.
You know, I got that impression too, but I thought I was being weird so I didn't say anything.
An unfair characterization I once read: Liberals love government bureaucrats, as long as they don't carry guns. Conservatives love them as long as they do carry guns. Libertarians hate 'em all. As I say, not entirely fair.
The great debates at the founding of the country occurred between conservatives (roughly), like Hamilton, John Adams, and (although he was supposedly non-partisan) Washington, and libertarians (roughly) like Jefferson, and the Democratic-Republicans. Madison probably falls somewhere in the middle.
It was great in those days: there were no liberals to speak of.
Thanks, and how does all this relate to this specific case? Given this guy's background, should he have been allowed to use purchase? Does the response to that question change depending on whether our tax money is used to pay for his prescription or not?
No. We're more personal-freedom-centered than conservatives tend to be.
The question originally posed was what Libertarians, the "legalize all drugs" crowd, would say about this case.
I answered that characterizing us as the "legalize all drugs" crowd is completely irrelevant in this case, since the drug in question is already legal.
To that extent, my Libertarianism shouldn't matter. The truth - that Viagra is legal - is the truth to anyone, liberal or conservative.
I don't agree. I'm trying to ascertain the Libertarian view on allowing a person with this man's background to purchase this particular type of drug. Apparently, some Libertarians are feeling a bit defensive over this question. Not sure why.
Yes and I agree that personal freedom is important. Unfortunately, I also think that this is one area where the Liberals are dangerous - giving too much freedom to people who can't - or shouldn't - be allowed to handle it. The Libbies live in lala land - they think they can actually 'help' street people. As long as there is choice, there will be a chance that Liberals can be overtaken. Thank GOD!
Okay, so regardless of this man's criminal background, you don't have any issues with him being permitted to purchase this particular drug.
You were the first Libertarian to offer an actual answer. Thanks.
Because it is a fallacious question.
You asked what the "legalize all drugs" crowd thinks of this.
I explained (several times) that Viagra is legal, so whether we want drugs legal or not is irrelevant in this case.
(For the record, I don't think sex offenders should have access to sex aids.)
Oh, for the love of God, QUIT TWISTING WHAT I SAY.
If I thought it was okay for him to buy the drug, I would have said so.
As a matter of fact, I don't think it's okay for him to do so.
BUT THAT WAS NOT WHAT YOU ASKED.
I don’t believe men convicted repeated times of rape should still possess the equipment that the drug targets.
I've had it with this thread.
You are willfully misunderstanding me (and frankly I thought you were smarter than that), or you're baiting me in an attempt to score some points, or you have a problem with reading comprehension.
I don't care which it is. I'm done here. I've answered your original question several times.
Relates as follows: Nobody should be paying for anybody else's anything. Including drugs.
Given this guy's background, should he have been allowed to use purchase?
The most libertarian libertarians would say, "The problem isn't the drug. It's the person. The system failed here because he has spent far too little time in jail for very serious crimes. Being outraged because he was given (or sold) Viagra is a waste of good outrage: He should have still been in prison having sex with one of his punks instead of raping new female victims." The more conservative libertarian would say, "just as felons are not permitted to own firearms (as part of their punishment), it would be an appropriate use of state power to deny him use of sexual performance drugs--as part of his punishment, not as a general prohibition."
Both libertarians would wonder how he got of jail in the first place, or why it took ten years to send him back for the 1996 crimes. And I don't think any libertarian would say he could not opt for castration as part of a plea reduction. We might even be willing to have the taxpayers pay for that...
Exactly how did I twist what you said?
If I thought it was okay for him to buy the drug, I would have said so.
What you specifically said was:
Considering Viagra is completely legal, you won't hear anything about it from us Libertarians.
How is that not saying it is okay for the guy to purchase the drug?
As a matter of fact, I don't think it's okay for him to do so.
So exactly what do you mean by that? Do you mean "He shouldn't have it, but oh well?" or "He shouldn't have it, and the government should have stepped in and stopped it."
BUT THAT WAS NOT WHAT YOU ASKED.
Not word for word, no. I think the defensiveness of some Libertarians is leading them to not think about the question, but instead to react as though they have been attacked. I'm glad there have been a few Libertarians who didn't take offense and actually answered me.
Yes, I did. And I was wondering if there were any who felt this particular drug shouldn't be legal for this particular person (meaning, should the government step in to keep him from purchasing it).
I explained (several times) that Viagra is legal, so whether we want drugs legal or not is irrelevant in this case.
You made the statement to me only once as I recall.
"If you really believe that to be the case, I'll bet your kids are as dumb as rocks (if you have any)."
Let me give you some advice (can't claim this as my own):
It's better to keep your mouth shut and let others wonder about your intelligence, or lack thereof, than to open it and remove all doubt.
LOL Yes, I'm quite sure your kids, if you have any, are as dumb as rocks. They're probably quite terrified to ask any questions, as you would attack them for daring to ask.
All right, sage one, let me ask you this-- how's the response been to that innocent and oh-so-sincere question of yours?
My 4 year old kid sometimes asks stupid questions because she likes to herself talk. Most of the time I patiently answer her, but sometimes I just tell her that she already knows the answer.
She's four years old. What's your excuse?
BTW-- to answer your original stupid question-- Libertarians think giving Viagra to a convicted rapist SUCKS!
Good day.
You may be right and it would certainly be an interesting discussion. It just doesn't seem like necessary information for a "Should convicted Rapists be given Viagra by the state" argument.
That's all.
I hope they sue the prescribing doctor for every penny they ever hoped to have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.