End public funding of all drugs. Whether it be Viagra or penicillin, no one has a right to steal others' money to buy themselves drugs.

Pretty simply put, Paul, the libertarian screen: money is more important than people.

America certainly needs more discussion on this -- there are some real problems.

Those that bitch about TAXES TAXES - need instead to focus on value adding programs, for example, public funding of pre-natal care which is a no-brainer good thing to do, but I don't like $800,000 of state tax money being spent on Viagra, a far from a life saving medicine.

Viagra is great for sunburn. It keeps the sheet off of you.

Lon,

No, actually, that's not it. People's rights are more important than anything else, which is why we shouldn't allow theft to run rampant.

I think they should erect a statue in honor of those who invented viagra. It has greatly improved the lives of many who otherwise would have a hard (or maybe not-so-hard) time engaging in a completely natural act. I know of several women who claim that *their* lives have improved as a result of this drug. I have no problem not giving this drug to humans--but why not help those who are law-abiding pay for it? Many of them have had *their* money "stolen"( I assume Paul was referring to taxes above) from them to pay for things they didn't need or want (I don't have kids--why does *my* money go to schools; i don't support the war in Iraq--why is *my* money being used for this; I don't drive on the Interstate--why is *my* money being used for this?)

End public funding of *all* drugs? Are you willing to watch you parent, spouse or child suffer as a result?

ooops--in my previous post I meant to type "I have no problem not giving this drug to prisoners" sorry for the lack of proffreading...

Hugh,

If you want to help other people pay for their Viagra, then you go right ahead. Why would I care if you do that? Just don't force me to do the same.

I don't why you put the words "their" and "stolen" in quotation marks as if it's not their money and as if it's not being stolen. It is their money as long as they obtained it honestly, and it is being stolen from many of them because they don't approve of it being taken for that purpose. To steal means to take without permission, and I assure you that they do not have my permission to spend my money on Viagra for someone else. If I try to prevent them from taking my money, the odds are too great that they'll send armed men to come steal everything else I own and/or throw me in jail. The government is basically a legalized version of the mob.

And you're precisely correct; your money shouldn't be stolen to pay for others' education, for the war in Iraq, or for interstate highways either.

Hugh: here're my answer - worth a quarter with inflation:

"I don't have kids--why does *my* money go to schools"

Because kids need to learn how to read and write to communicate and create and be productive citizens and do work that helps you in more ways than there are stars in the sky (ok, maybe not quite that many). Frankly - it's a small price we pay (taxes), and imo, we have let the education of our children slip away, and that is rapidly destroying America.

"I don't support the war in Iraq - why is *my* money being used for this"

No really good answer from me -- perhaps so Haliburton can enrich it's shareholders?

"I don't drive on the Interstate -- why is *my* money being used for this?"

Well similar to the education issue, you do benefit indirectly. A more cynical answer would be that early in the last century, good old American corporations like Firestone and General Motors were buying up the town trolley companies and then shutting them down, pulling the tracks, and selling lots of cars. OR because Mr. I Like Ike started the Interstate system as an answer to the Nazi blitzkreig (spelling), being worried about how to rapidly move the military across this great nation of ours.

All, of course, as far as I know and in my humble opinion only.

p.s.: PAUL - you still owe an answer on how, if we all paid for our own medical needs, without a common pool of some sort - how folks like the Hoggards would get through their recent crisis.

From:

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2005/06/hoggfest_shows.html

"Paul - I agree "government" is not the answer - but shared responsibility is a very reasonable solution to problems like this.

My problem with the Libertarian solution, as I understand it, is it is "impossible" for all the individuals the Hoggards have even personally met to collect the $350K needed for Jinni. Multiple this by all the others that are (or will) be in a similar situation ... and the need for a shared community effort is needed, not just in healthcare but in many elements of our lives.

You can call the "shared community" government, or universal healthcare, or socialism, or whatever you want - but ultimately people have to help people, and these "institutions" provide a mechanism to help. How is this nurtured by strict "Libertarian" practices?

James,

The fact that kids need to learn to read and write in no way means that everyone must be forced to pay for everyone else's education. When the government's monopoly on education is ended, private schooling will be affordable for almost everyone, and the few unfortunate people who can't afford it will find plenty of people willing to help them out.

I think the reason our tax dollars are paying for war in Iraq is because the dollar had been the standard currency in the oil trade, and then Saddam began accepting euros, which devalued the dollar. We couldn't allow the dollar to be devalued, so we're at war now. I don't have any proof of this, but it's the most reasonable-sounding explanation to me.

The interstate system was not a response to the Nazis. Eisenhower didn't become president until 1953, eight years after the war ended. I think you're on the right track though. I suppose it was in part a Cold War measure.

James,

The government takes up to 50% of my wealth each year through income tax, property tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, food tax, etc. Part of the reason they do this is to provide healthcare for others. After they're finished, I don't have much left for myself, nor do the needy receive as much as they should because half of all the money gets sucked up and wasted by bureaucratic red tape.

Now, why do you suppose someone like me isn't currently able or willing to donate very much money to the Hoggards?

Get the government out of all of this, and here's what will happen:

1) I will keep all of my paycheck, not pay property taxes, food taxes, etc.

2) With all the extra money I have now, I can actually afford health insurance!

3) Now that excessive regulation and inefficient bureaucracies are no longer driving up the cost of healthcare, not only can I afford insurance now, but insurance doesn't cost as much as it used to because healthcare doesn't cost as much either!

4) I'll be out of debt in two years now that the government isn't stealing half of all my wealth.

5) Once out of debt, compared to my situation now, I'll be a rich man. Now that I've got more than enough money for myself, I can help others out a bit. Of course, now there aren't as many needy people as there used to be because:

1) The free market has created so many more jobs

2) Things don't cost as much as they used to

3) Charity is direct and immediate, allowing 100% of donations to reach recipients

4) Etc.

Paul and James-
I'll admit to playing devil's advocate above. I understand that we pay taxes for things that may not directly aaffect us but do so indirectly (i.e. even though I don't have kids, I hope we have an education system that can turn out future contributers to society etc; I may not drive on the interstate--but I know the oranges I ate at breakfast this morning arrived at my local supermarket thanks to trucks that traveled on federally funded interstates, etc).

I can also accept Paul's reluctance to pay for others to use Viagra (heck, in all honesty I agree with you on that, Paul-- it's not really a life-or-death drug). I guess I'm just not ready to extend that feeling out to *all* drugs..some are indeed life-or-death situations. And, if my money is going to be taxed and the taxes are going to be used for things that I don't support, then why shouldn't some of my tax dollars be used to benefit me directly (i.e. drugs that may protect my life, not just my lifestyle).

All-in-all, I understand and can appreciate the libertarian sentiment--it's just that, at times, it seems to be taken to extremes that I'm just not comfortable with. I'm glad, for my parent's sake, that they were able to obtain drugs/health care that greatly improved their quality of their lives. They would not have been able to afford/receive these without the use of medicare.

There are easy refutations to the utopia described by Paul. The failure here is the failure to understand that taxes and government are part of a system. If you treat them as isolated events, you are either naïve or you are on an evangelical mission that causes you to disregard facts.

I'm not going into details, but most people can see that ...

If taxes are eliminated, you'll need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government. If taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well.
(Not my words, see http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html)
This get-rich-quick prediction is the product of an irrational and immature leap of logic typical of the breed. This is not a system that works or has ever worked.
And don't forget the rest of the agenda. Libertarians in the South, especially, hold back the anti-family, anti-church elements of their platform. Here's another quote, from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/donfeder/df000515.shtml

"A libertarian government would consist of open borders, no troops abroad, no alliances and the repeal of laws against prostitution and drugs. If someone on crack cocaine kills your family, you can go to your private arbitration agency for adjudication."

Hugh,

"And, if my money is going to be taxed and the taxes are going to be used for things that I don't support, then why shouldn't some of my tax dollars be used to benefit me directly (i.e. drugs that may protect my life, not just my lifestyle)."

But why not simply avoid that whole mess and let everyone pay for their own stuff?

"All-in-all, I understand and can appreciate the libertarian sentiment--it's just that, at times, it seems to be taken to extremes that I'm just not comfortable with."

I can understand why you feel that way. Libertarianism would be a big, big change, because it's never happened before. Because of that, many fear it and/or don't understand it.
But it's kind of like the theory of relativity. Right now, if you tell a lot of people that time is relative to motion, that 10 years here on earth would equal only one year in a spaceship traveling at near light speed, they wouldn't accept it. It doesn't make common sense. That's because people have never experienced relativistic time and motion, so they assume it doesn't exist. But as Einstein said, common sense is a collection of prejudices. But someday in the future, if we build spaceships that can travel at relativistic speeds and travel at these speeds becomes an everyday phenomenon, then the relative nature of time will simply be common sense.

The same is true with libertarianism. It's outside of what people have always experienced, and so it doesn't make common sense to a lot of people. But if we would simply give it a go, then people would realize that we don't need government to control our lives for us, and after a few generations, that collection of prejudices that causes us to cling to government will vanish.

And a great day that will be. I can't even imagine what intellectual, economic, and scientific heights mankind will reach then.

Lon,

Of course you'll have to pay for things. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Everyone will pay their own way rather than stealing the wealth of others.

But the good thing about that is the free market will provide these things much cheaper and of higher quality than the government ever has. Furthermore, people will only purchase the things they actually want and need rather than being forced to pay for all of the other crap the government wastes our money on. Sure, in a libertarian world, I'll have to pay an annual fee to go into what was a state park, but now I'm only paying for the few things I use rather than everything. That would be a huge advantage.
I have no idea what you thought you would achieve with that argument.

This anti-family, anti-church argument is completely without a basis. How can we be anti-family and anti-church when we would do nothing to interfere with churches and families?

That article you linked to is nothing but a smear piece. It's trying to assert, for instance, that we believe murder shouldn't be illegal. That's utter hogwash. I've never heard a Libertarian say that murder shouldn't be illegal. We do believe in government, but we believe that the sole purpose of government is to protect people's rights. That would include protecting people from murder.
Furthermore, Lon, this article resorts to "strawmen and extremes," as you are so fond of saying, as in the case of 50 million Mexicans moving to California and Texas, seceding, and then reuniting with Mexico.

I don't why you're taking on this pseudo Right Wing identity anyway, Lon, by talking about family and church. As you say in your Yahoo! profile, you're "Left of anyone you know."

"But the good thing about that is the free market will provide these things much cheaper and of higher quality than the government ever has. Furthermore, people will only purchase the things they actually want and need rather than being forced to pay for all of the other crap the government wastes our money on."

I've stated before - imo we'd be better off working on increasing the effeciency of government services, and in removing the pork, than becoming a Libertarian society.

... I gotta tell you Paul, much of the rhetoric reminds me of the Commie rhetoric that promised "... if we would simply give it a go, then people would realize that we don't need government to control our lives for us, and after a few generations, that collection of prejudices that causes us to cling to government will vanish.

"And a great day that will be. I can't even imagine what intellectual, economic, and scientific heights mankind will reach then."

... one difference is communism actually has worked, but only in very small doses, like most American indian tribes, who could easily be considered stone-aged communist societies.

... and one could argue that Libertarianisn HAS succeeded - but only in even smaller tribes, such as individual farms homesteading on the 40 acre ranges 150 years ago, interestingly enough living in partial harmony with the stone-aged communist Indian societies ... until [arguable] the population density crushed both cultures.

.... and back to the original LTE - viagra is one of those "pork" perks. (I like that: "pork perks" !!)

Thank you Linda Hill of Trinity, NC.

James,

How can you possibly compare communism with libertarianism? They're polar opposites.

And libertarianism has never existed on earth, at least not that I know of.

Enough of this nonsense. I just want to know one thing:

Does anybody know how I can get the government to pay for my Viagra?

Cause this is the first time I've heard of taxpayer money being used to pay for it. And dangit, I'd like to try it. I don't have a problem, but I think it might be fun for one night!

Paul:

Please reread. I was not comparing communism with libertarianism, only the marketing - which makes it all sound so WONDERFUL!

" ... and libertarianism has never existed on earth, at least not that I know of .. " Perhaps not in name, but I think my homesteading analogy comes close in function - don't you agree? No government, everytihng fully provided by the citizen with no responsibilities to any one but oneself.