Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Do You Enforce Responsibility?

Truvada is a HIV prophylaxis medication.

One of the great difficulties of consistent libertarianism is that of making people bear the full consequences of their own actions and choices. Another great difficulty, indeed, is whether we should much care to live in a society that found a way of doing so.

It is easy enough, of course, to get people to behave any way they like. The most valued freedom of all, one that most of us have at some time or another sought—and that our society sometimes confers—is the freedom from the natural and foreseeable consequences of what we do. A mountaineer may value his liberty to climb mountains, and knows that it is a dangerous liberty to exercise; but if he has an accident, he is glad there is a mountain rescue team available, the proper share of whose costs he has almost certainly not paid and never will pay.

Then, too, no insurance policy ever covers only and precisely those risks that we share with others. This means that some of us are paying for more insurance than we need, and others less. It is unlikely that the discrepancy will ever be entirely eliminated.

A major story in the leading liberal newspaper in Britain, the Guardian, recently trumpeted the decision of the Scottish government to provide, at taxpayers’ expense, prophylactic medicine against the contraction of HIV infection by those who are “at risk” of contracting it. This medication undoubtedly does reduce statistical risk—very significantly—when taken properly. The question is, who should pay for it?

The government’s argument is pragmatic. Prophylaxis is much cheaper than cure, and under the current dispensation, most of the cost of the cure will fall upon the taxpayer. Therefore  it is in the financial interest of the taxpayer (quite apart from humanitarian considerations) to fund the prophylactic medication—on the assumption that, without such funding, those at risk would not take it and a subset of this group would become infected with HIV.

Against this, one could argue the following:

  • In most cases, the risk is taken in full consciousness of it. For example, in Britain most new cases of HIV infection are among homosexual men who choose not to use condoms.
  • They should therefore pay both for prophylaxis themselves against the avoidable risk, and also for their curative treatment if they fail to do so.
  • The fact that the costs of both are transferred to others increases the likelihood of their indulging in risky behavior in the first place.

The problem is that the above reasoning does not cover all cases or degrees of moral responsibility.

Suppose, for example, that a person has contracted HIV through no fault or risk-taking of his or her own. At that point the infected person risks passing it on to a future sexual partner (unless we are prepared to demand of him or her a complete sexual quarantine). Of course, somewhere along the line, someone most likely indulged knowingly in risky behavior that resulted in this person’s infection. Theoretically, the original risk-taker could be made responsible for payments for all future prophylaxis. But in practice, this is unfeasible, and even where feasible, it would be more expensive to enforce than merely paying for the prophylaxis in the first place.

The person who has contracted HIV through no fault or risk-taking of his or her own may genuinely be unable to pay for prophylaxis, as may his or her sexual partner. Would we wish such people to deny themselves sexual activity ever after for lack of funds? And would such a wish be enforceable in any case, short of a totalitarian surveillance system?

There might be other sources of funds for him or her than the government—family or charity, for example. But equally there might not be. And if people were not able to pay for their prophylaxis, a fortiori they would not be able to pay for their treatment. The cost would then fall on someone other than themselves, assuming that we could not as a civilized society just let them painfully and slowly die. To deny them treatment because they had brought their misfortune on themselves would be pretty hard-hearted. It would constitute, not the great fortitude of mind that James Boswell admiringly ascribed to Dr. Johnson, but rather the stark insensibility that Dr. Johnson admitted was more accurate.

Hard cases may make bad law but they make good journalism. We live in a society in which you have only to publicize a hard case for there to be demands for a change in the law, demands that are sometimes met, either immediately or in the long run. And since politics is not merely the easy art of being absolutely right in the abstract, but the far more difficult and arduous one of making things slightly better in practice, the argument that, as responsible beings who are agents, that is to say subjects and not objects, the consequences of our actions should be brought home to us, even unto the point of death (a principle with which we may agree, intellectually), is not likely to be much of a guide to practical politics.

All the same, although I can see the arguments on the Scottish government’s side, the provision of prophylactic medicines to reduce the risk associated with voluntary behaviors makes me very uneasy. At what point will the government bow out and not cushion the ill-effects of citizens’ own decisions?

On the same page as the article about prophylaxis of HIV in Scotland, we read:

The government is making extra grants available to schools and nurseries as they scramble to provide the places required to fulfil the Conservatives’ pre-election pledge of 30 hours a week of free childcare.

All the arguments in favor of providing prophylaxis for HIV can be used in favor of providing child-care “free” to mothers (it is not costless to others, or even to the mothers themselves insofar as they pay taxes to fund it), or indeed in favor of anything else. In short, it would be possible, using these arguments, to advocate the governmental allocation of all goods and services in Britain.

Perhaps the moral of the story is that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of totalitarian minds.

Theodore Dalrymple


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Patriotism Gap

By Daniel Allott
Political pundits identify several fault lines when attempting to describe the political and cultural divisions in America today based on sex, race, age, political ideology, geography, and more. But another fault line has emerged between those who feel an instinctive love of country and those whose feelings toward their county depend on which way the political winds are blowing. This patriotism gap is getting far less attention than it deserves.

A recent Gallup poll finds that 67 percent of Democrats are “extremely” or “very proud” to be Americans, down 11 percentage points since just last year, and a new low since Gallup began measuring such attitudes in 2001.

Based on the decline among Democrats, three out of four U.S. adults now say they are proud to be American, which is also a new low. In the early 2000s, for instance, the share of Americans who said they were proud to be Americans was in the 90s.

Also, the 14 percent of Democrats who say they are either “only a little proud” (9 percent) or “not at all proud” (5 percent) to be American is more than double last year’s number of 6 percent.

Republicans, meanwhile, are just as patriotic as they’ve always been. “Republicans’ pride remains high at 92%,” Gallup reports, “close to the average 94% Gallup has measured for the group since 2001.”

All told, a 25-point gap in patriotic feelings exists between Republicans and Democrats, which, again, is the highest in Gallup’s records.

Americans are a patriotic people. Visiting foreigners sometimes marvel that the Star-Spangled Banner is ubiquitous, not just on the Fourth of July but in front yards and on T-shirts across the country all year round.

But patriotism among liberals has been waning for years, and, as the Gallup poll shows, has now dropped to a new low.

It’s no coincidence that the decline of patriotism on the left has happened at the same time as a similar drop in trust in what used to be the bedrock institutions of American society — police, military, and the church.

Americans are passionate about our politics, but liberals are on average much more willing to allow politics to determine how they feel about their country. Consider that Barack Obama’s 2008 election victory did not cause a large share of Republicans to feel less patriotic. In fact, the share that felt patriotic stayed the same throughout most of Obama’s 8 years in office.

The left’s patriotism fluctuates much more wildly. Ninety-three percent were very or extremely patriotic immediately after 9/11; just 67 percent are today.

Considering these numbers, it seems safe to conclude that conservatives’ love of country is unconditional while liberals’ is conditioned on their political and policy preferences.

Their patriotism, in other words, is more fickle than that of conservatives.

Don’t get me wrong: most Democrats are patriotic. The young men and women who join the U.S. military come from both Democratic and Republican households. But what should concern us all are the obvious trends emerging on the left.

So what’s happened over the last year to compel so many liberals to fall out of love with their country? Barack Obama has left office after a lackluster eight years and Donald Trump has become president.

While Trump’s victory gave millions of Americans hope, it also caused many on the left to lose faith. In one pre-election poll, 28 percent of Americans said that they had at least considered leaving the U.S. for good “for a country such as Canada” if Trump were elected. Fourteen percent rated the probability as “very high.” Doing the math, that comes to nearly 50 million Americans. According to the New York Times, immediately following his election victory, “move to Canada” became one of the top trending Google search topics.

via Articles: The Patriotism Gap

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mayor Threatens to Quit Because His Town Voted for Le Pen – The Still Report

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An Interview with Sandra Solomon – Dr. Bill Warner

Sandra Solomon is a former Muslim, raised in Saudi Arabia, who now lives in Canada. We talked with her about:
• Being an apostate
• How Canadian hate speech laws affect her
• What it is like to wear the black robes in the heat
• Child brides
• Rape of female servants
• What it is like to see the West while living in a Sharia nation
What you discover from her answers is that Muslims follow the Islamic doctrine, just as it is laid out in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Some walls are OK, but not our’s?


Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

An Emasculated Culture in a Fema-Nazi Society – BATR


An Emasculated Culture in a Fema-Nazi Society

Only those who have been existing under a rock are unaware of the integral destruction of Western Civilization and fundamental values that mark the last several decades. After the endless warnings and documentation provided by some of the most perceptive thinkers of the last several generations, society ignores and even condemns the factual record of this cultural path into oblivion. What has emerged is a disturbed mental insanity that demands total allegiance to a deranged political correctness. While it is evident that the genetic traits of the heinous descendants of Eve have formed the vanguard of this macabre authoritarian mindset, the decisive responsibility for allowing and furthering this spiteful temperament, rests upon the cowardly male gender that lost the courage to hold feminists accountable for their demented state of mind.

When a civilization abdicates the inherent reality of facts, the elimination of truth soon follows. The mass popular practice of establishing a singular purity of thought is promoted as having a savoir-faire that will root out old customs of conduct and replace it with a wholesomeness of adherence to a Hippolyta, queen of the Amazons society. How quaint, to watch the inane poppycock that purports to pass for social commentary in the decadent media. If your tolerance for such drivel has long ago hit the saturation point, it becomes imperative that confronting these debilitated schizoids and refuse to accept their validity as a thinking and balanced person.

The relative ease by which totalitarian conformity is swallowed by the lethargic public is appalling. Free Speech can be abolished at Berkley, while Nazi thugs practice a 21th century version of book burning. Bill O’Reilly can be ushered out of the most watched cable news/political program with not so much as a farewell. The Fox wimp siblings must succumb to the advertiser invertebrates to satisfy the demands of the collectivist opposition. And when the gutless GOP Congress allows the Progressive Gestapo to force their Globalist Marxism agenda, the minority becomes the veto proof stalwart band of state religion.

Now not all is lost. There are a few shining stars in the ferment of black holes. Now that Don Rickles has vacated the throne of “Mr. Warmth”, the indomitable Katie Hopkins is set to be crowned as the queen of mean. A gal who slings the venom of truth has a warm spot in the heart of every red blooded male.

On feminism:

“Women don’t want equal treatment, they couldn’t handle it if they got it. It’s a tough world out there. What a lot of women are actually looking for is special treatment. What women need to realise is that they have to toughen up.”

If you are in the camp of the sycophants, who believe that celebrates or media personalities are credible opinion makers, you need to check your meds. Watching a few minutes of the Joy BS on the View, or the fake news on CNN, or the delusional Mr. Maddow on MSNBC; does not provide a welcoming platform for the raw veracity that a Katie Hopkins can generate.

Even viewing the FAUX stable of bimbos and pseudo commentary “experts”, one takes away that the boundary line for discourse is severely limited to what is acceptable to Sarah and Kathryn Murdoch, than to their loyal audience, who knows that the heyday of fair and balanced has long passed away.

America has become a castrated culture ruled by a Femifascist society where “The average femanazi is a hypocritical dictator and a sexist. They tend to believe the male gender is conspiring against women and show no restraint in heaving up utter nonsense, which they refer to as ‘an argument’.”

With the utter destruction of academic integrity, institutions of higher learning have become asylums of electroshock therapy for integrating diminished government school graduates into the advanced treatment of producing social parasites. Public education is more damaging than communal isolation.

The example of a traditional social organization should alarm any sound thinking countryman. Tony Perkins argues, in Our Culture ‘Has Been Emasculated By Feminists And By The Left,’ Endangering Western Civilization.

“Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, joined “Breitbart News Daily” this morning, where he told host Alex Marlow that the Boy Scouts’ recent decision to allow transgender boys to join troops and policies allowing LGBT people to serve in the military are evidence that American culture “has been emasculated by the feminists and by the left,” to the detriment of western civilization.

Perkins told Marlow that the Boy Scouts of America was “designed, initially, to turn boys into men so that they could defend the country” but that “in this almost emasculated culture in which we live, that’s a thing of another era.”

He added that “those driving this agenda have an insatiable desire to radically transform America” and the Boy Scouts’ recent move “shows that this agenda is insatiable” and “cannot be appeased.”

Do not look to any Supreme Court to codify basic Bill of Right protections in this age of cultural relativity. With the decline in IQ measurement, “psychology professor, Jan te Nijenhuis at the University of Amsterdam, says Westerners have lost an average of 14 IQ points since the Victoria Era.” Add to this dumbing down of the masses, the debasement in the culture, and the prospects that a ruled society, will adopt living law accommodations and forgo the timeless principles of common law and inherent autonomy.

For an insight review The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government.

“Those within the modern feminist movement frequently speak the language of equal opportunity and rights, but what they are really seeking is absolute parity between the sexes in all areas of society. This view is based both on a monolithic view of what it means to be an autonomous woman, and on the belief that discriminatory socialization, power imbalances within the family and society as a whole, and pervasive gender-based violence (which both results from and reinforces power imbalances) have created a social, economic, and political system that is inherently hostile to women. On these grounds, the modern feminist movement is less interested in protecting individual freedom and rights than it is in fundamentally transforming the American public consciousness and America’s political and private institutions.”

For those that see this assessment as an affront to feminism, you may not have a proper understanding of basic human rights. Examine 10 Winning Arguments Against Radical Feminism.

1) Feminism has nothing to do with gender equality.

2) Gender isn’t a social construct.

3) Gender roles are freely chosen (or freely rejected).

4) Women are not paid less for the same work, and equal pay legislation would backfire.

5) The patriarchy is doing a terrible job of privileging men.

6) Without capitalism, there would be no feminism.

7) Feminism oppresses clueless young men.

8) Rape culture is a radical Muslim thing.

9) Defending the 2nd Amendment should be feminists’ No #1 Priority.

10) Anti-feminist women are the ultimate individualists.

How did such an absurd and extreme perversion of defining female superiority in a world of male historic accomplishment come about? Easy when you tear down the pillars of an objective achievement society and replace it with a female victimhood and an irrational egotistical dominate pretense. In essence, Feminism Is a Hate Group, “When some of the most prominent feminists and famous women make openly hateful anti-male statements, and the mainstream feminist organizations say and do nothing to distance themselves from such public statements, then it’s clear that the hatred of men has an accepted place in mainstream feminism.”


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment