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?
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...