My comment was two-pronged. In response to Reed's headline, which was designed to catch attention, mine was to give him an un-foreseen reply. I thought to edit the “shall be made to” and decided to leave it to see which semanticist jumped on it. Of course, I see what you mean Mr Goode. Funny little interchange.

What gregster means is that if you want the morning-after pill, you should pay for it, and not the taxpayer. If I sold a house to you and "made you pay", is that considered the initiation of force? "Making people pay" for something is only inconsistent with NIOF if you haven't actually bought the item that you're made to pay for (for instance, NZ taxpayers being made to pay for twit girls to get morning after pills).

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

My point is that "They should be made to do X" is an unfortunate turn of phrase when what the speaker actually means is, "They should freely choose whether or not to do X". (Say what you mean, and mean what you say.)

"They should be made to do X" isn't consistent with the NIOF brand.

that always flushes them out from under their rocks.

Richard's just yankin' your chain.

They should be made to pay for the emergency abortion pill. vs Them as wants it, should have to pay for it.

Is there a quaint Latin term for argument from deliberate misinterpretation?

Let's see:
Greg, a "small government loving capitalist atheist and extremely proud of it", long time member of SOLO, who we can easily surmise is familiar with and agrees with the NIOF principle, says "They should be made to pay for the emergency abortion pill". Applying what we know of Greg, and the context that he is referring to the fact that the pill is going to be given away for "free", we can surmise his intended meaning without being confused by "should be made".

Instead we get:
Too many Objectivists around here wanting to make people do things. That's not what I call NIOF.

Ahhh yes, very droll Richard very droll. Reminiscent of Rick Giles even.

... is spectacularly on display, once more.

When government pays for the pills, this represents the initiation of force.

Objectivists would require parental consent for medicines to be given to minors, except under certain defined conditions -- and require parents to provide needed medical treatment to the children in their care.

This is not "initiating force," of course, but the protection against such force.

No Objectivist advocates forcing anyone to take or do anything.

Except, of course, when we ask YOU to READ a little before the yammering commences.

They should be made to pay for the emergency abortion pill.

Too many Objectivists around here wanting to make people do things. That's not what I call NIOF.

They should be made to pay for the emergency abortion pill.