New drug blocks HIV from entering cells

[The Man]

How can I have the right to my life if the government has a continual claim on it? It's contrary to any definition of freedom.

The government doesn't have a continual claim on your life. Life does not equal property, despite what you continue to say without any justification or proof whatsoever (I've been asking you for the last five posts to explain your reasoning on this, and you haven't given me anything more than rhetoric).

The 18th amendment also outlaws the sale of alcohol...that doesn't mean it's a great thing.

The Eighteenth Amendment has been repealed. It was an evil, but the people voted it in, and the U.S. is a democracy, so by the U.S.'s own standards, it should have been enacted. Don't like it, don't live in a democracy.

And, you were the one who brought up the tenth amendment as justification for saying that the government could not tax people, so it's a bit strange for you to go criticizing the Constitution now.

Oh yes, so the approval of the Patriot Act is also just, by that logic. As were the Sedition Acts of 1800 and 1920.

An amendment, which is voted on by the people, is hardly the same thing as a law, which is not. I agree that some laws the U.S. government has passed should not have been, but I deal with this by not voting for the people who pass them, and by writing letters to my senators and representatives asking them not to pass bills I don't approve of.

Where are you pulling this from?

Simple logic. The funds have to run out sometime.

It's communism, by any definition. Socialism is window-dressed communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It forfeits the right of the individual, forfeits freedom, and forfeits any claim to benefit the "common good." What is the common good? What is the public?

Wait, so any redistribution of wealth at all now equates to the Soviet Union? 'Kay.

Then they earn it, or go without.

Many poor people are poor because they cannot find a job. Do these people deserve no education? That will simply continue the cycle of poverty. If they have no education, they cannot find jobs that actually earn them enough money to pay for an education because they have no education. Or, in many cases, they simply can't find jobs. Isn't that ridiculously inefficient?

First off, I don't agree with public education or welfare. How can the government force me to finance something that I don't agree with and that doesn't benefit me?

Because of the Sixteenth Amendment. Don't like it, go to a country that doesn't have income tax. You live in a democracy, and it's the will of the people that there be a federal income tax. Don't like it, don't live in a democracy.

Partially, but why were the assesment tests made in the first place?

Because people like Jeb Bush were elected into office.

Or just privatize schools entirely, which would cut taxes dramatically and make schools competitive, which means prices would drop, teacher salaries would increase, and education quality would increase.

I see no evidence of any of that. Usually, when things are privatized, they become more expensive because if a corporation can get more money, they'll ask for more money. That's even accepting your premises, which I do not because you have no statistics to back them up.