I can't believe you are arguing for Nanny Statism because to do otherwise it might endanger your socialist Medicare.
If a bisexual man with AIDS impregnates a woman and the baby she delivers has the AIDS virus, I suppose you would advocate euthanizing that child, wouldn't you. I'm all for cutting the welfare state in half or better. Unfortunately, if people like you keep apologizing for perversion, it will be difficult to cut it since the social costs of these depravities must be picked up somehow.
As long as libertarian social ideas are prevalent, the government will keep growing.
Given the historical data available regarding the growth curve of the federal gov't, given that libertarians have been in power for roughly none of that entire time span and given that libertarian social ideals are not prevalent in our society to any noticable degree barring further clarification, kindly support your contention.
"If a tree falls in the forest..."
How about the prime actor in any action that harms another pay the restitution? I suppose that doesn't make any damn sense to you. After all, it follows like... logic and stuff.
You commit a crime, you do restitution to your victim. If said victim is DEAD... then why should a jury of your peers not condem you to die as well? If there IS no victim, then there was no crime. And no, the law itself cannot be the victim.
Also, in a real capitalistic society with free-market principles applied to the health care industry.... we'd probably have a cure for AIDS by now. We wouldn't need to wait seven years for some government bureacrat to get his head out of his a$$.
If a bisexual man with AIDS impregnates a woman and the baby she delivers has the AIDS virus, I suppose you would advocate euthanizing that child, wouldn't you.
Taking care of that child should fall under the provence of charity.
Its sad that you think socialism or death are the only options.