If condoms are handed out for free, thereby reducing the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies, the entire nation and everyone in it profits.
Anyone who wants to profit from that without chipping in towards the initial investment (i.e. buying condoms) is a moocher. I think they can be called a "moocher" even in a Randian sense.
Anyway, Phatscotty, did you not support testing welfare recipients for drugs and said that one reason for doing so was to lower costs for the state? How was that any different from lowering costs by providing condoms? In fact, providing condoms for every citizen is far less intrusive and requires less bureaucracy than testing even a relatively small portion of the population for traces of drugs.
Finally, improved health and family planning leads to improved productivity, which means a stronger economy, which means more money for the state even without raising taxes. The argument for a state-run program handing out condoms comes down to more than just, and I quote you, "well, the state already is responsible for covering all these accidents and and problems, therefore, we should expand the state further/redistribute more/take money from other people to save the state money".
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.