The initiation of force is always wrong.Saying "Force is always wrong" is an incredibly naive and simplistic view on morality...pretty befitting of Libertarians.
Maybe if we lived in some sort of utopia that'd be true, but in the real world it's often necessary to force people to do things, either for their own good or for the greater good. In fact that's the point of having a government. The idea that no amount of "force" is ever morally permissible and that this completely trumps any other considerations about morality or justice is very, very ridiculous if you actually think about it. If you can't see this then you haven't actually thought about what your saying, but I'll give you one example of how silly this is -
Suppose a man, who has committed no violence against anyone, has a highly contagious disease. While he isn't dying, as long as he has the disease it will inevitably spread to other people and many of them will in fact die. There is medication available to cure the disease but, for whatever reason (maybe his religious beliefs?), he is unwilling to take it.
Common sense would dictate that the government (perhaps the CDC) would be justified in quarantining this guy and forcing him to take the medication anyway. But Libertarians would say that aggression/force is always wrong, no matter what the circumstance, so...I guess we just let the guy continue to infect people until the free-market somehow does something about it? After all, we wouldn't want to violate the non-aggression principle, right?
See how silly that is? And yes, I could come up with hundreds of other similar scenarios. Fact is, in the real world, it is sometimes necessary to force people to do things. To say otherwise is naive and utopian. Having the basis of your political philosophy be "Nobody should never, ever, never, ever, never, ever be able to make anybody do anything they don't want to do " is the epitome of a childish philosophy.
"for their own good" Every time i see this i at its brilliance.
Being free, means being free to make bad/wrong decisions... if you are going to make what you see as the right decision for them, and implement it using force you cant call them free.
as for your scenario Infecting people with a serious disease/sickness is a crime, and people are currently in jail for it. He would be arrested for infecting others(an act of aggression).
He could also be held liable for any loss he has incurred on those he infected.
You admit it is immoral to initiate force, but think it should be done... Thus you advocate immorality in the name of the greater good.
I dont see "the greater good" as a valid moral concept. if you can save 100 by killing one innocent man, I dont think it should be done. Crazy, naive, stupid, w/e you want to call it. Its how I see it.