Novak Djokovic: Global Standard Bearer for Body Autonomy

  • World

Mark Dolan has made some excellent observations in his commentary, “Novak Djokovic has won the argument, game set, and match“:

Keypoints:

  • Djokovic is a twofold hero…for a “brave battle he didn’t have to fight, he is a global standard-bearer for bodily autonomy.”
  • large parts of Australia have effectively become a police state
  • Djokovic willingly relinquished trophies as a matter of principle.
  • “How ironic that Australia should be the home of a kangaroo court.”
  • Zero Covid, lockdown policy has failed
  • the vaccine, whilst fantastic at preventing severe illness and death, has to be a matter of personal choice.

Related: Novak Djokovic: Deported for ‘Thought Crimes’ in Austrailia

 

Novak Djokovic: Deported for ‘Thought Crimes’ in Australia

The number one tennis player in the world, and reigning Australian Open champion, Novak Djokovic, was deported for the ‘thought-crime’ of being a symbol of those who opposed dystopian vaccine mandates.

According to the WSJ:

“Australia’s decision to cancel tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa for a second time was driven by fear that letting him stay could foster antivaccine sentiment during a surge in Covid-19 cases, court documents show. Immigration minister Alex Hawke didn’t dispute Djokovic’s claim of a medical exemption from rules that travelers to Australia must be vaccinated against Covid-19, according to documents made public Saturday. Hawke, who canceled Djokovic’s visa on Friday, said allowing the player to stay could sway some Australians against getting vaccinated.”

[…] “Djokovic’s lawyer Nick Wood argued in a late-night court hearing on Friday that Hawke’s reasoning was flawed because he hadn’t considered that Djokovic’s deportation could have an impact on antivaccine sentiment.”

[…] “Hawke didn’t refute Djokovic’s contention that he posed a negligible health risk, documents showed. Djokovic has said his Covid-19 infection in December confers similar protection to a vaccine, the documents said.” [Australia Feared Letting Novak Djokovic Stay Would Fuel Antivaccine Sentiment, Stuart Condie, 15 Jan 2022″]

It is instructive to note that Djokovic was not finally deported for an invalid medical exemption (the Australian federal government ended up not questioning that validity in the final hearing), nor that he was a physical threat to others (as he tested negative for COVID), nor that he was unvaccinated (as he has “natural immunity” from previous COVID infections which exempts him from the vaccination).

Djokovic was deported because he may be seen as a symbol for “anti-vaccination sentiment” by the Federal government, according to Mr. Hawke, and that under section 133C(3) of the Migration Act he has the legal power to cancel the visa held by Djokovic “on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.”

Comments Mr. Hawke:

“Mr Djokovic is such a person of influence and status. Having regard to the matters set out above regarding Mr Djokovic’s conduct after receiving a positive COVID-19 result, his publicly stated views, as well as his unvaccinated status, I consider that his ongoing presence in Australia may encourage other people to disregard or act inconsistently with public health advice and polices in Australia.”

“In addition, I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission.”

“These matters go to the very preservation of life and health of many members of the general community and further are crucial to the maintaining the health system in Australia, which is facing increasing strain in the current circumstances of the pandemic.”

(Note that in Australia’s population of those age 16 and over, more than 90 percent have been double vaccinated.)

***

This brings to my mind these wise words by Rav Arora:

“Honesty, nuance, and compassion are especially needed when it comes to personal health choices. We are only born with one body and we must make medically informed decisions at our own volition without governmental coercion or political pressure.”
Apparently not in the fascist state of Australia.
***

Avi Yemini has an excellent breakdown of the context surrounding his unjust deportation:

Related: Novak Djokovic: Global Standard Bearer for Body Autonomy

Adam Mossoff: Google’s Intellectual Property Theft Problem

Writes Adam Mossoff, in Big Tech has an IP piracy problem:

Years ago, Big Tech companies like Google decided that they profit more by stealing smaller companies’ intellectual property than buying or licensing it. Google, Apple, Samsung and others — with cash reserves in the tens, even hundreds, of billions of dollars — do not sweat legal fees, court costs or even damages they might have to pay for this theft. Google has a reported $142 billion in cash in the bank. This is far beyond what most companies make in total annual profits.

Big Tech thus takes what it wants. It then uses scorched-earth litigation tactics to beat up on complaining IP owners. It drags out litigation over many years and imposes massive litigation costs on IP owners seeking justice. Many IP owners don’t even file a lawsuit. They know it is ruinous and self-defeating to try to protect what is rightfully theirs.

Simply put, Big Tech benefits from stealing IP. The legal costs and potential damages, if ever issued after years of litigation, are paltry by comparison.

A few companies have fought back, and the results confirm this predatory infringement practice. The story of Google’s abuse of Sonos is one of the more telling ones.

Read the rest.

Image: Pixabay

 

Individual Rights: Paul Hseih Makes The Case Against Government Vax Mandates

In “Not Everyone Wants To Be Vaccinated. I’m OK With That“, Dr. Paul Hseih (who voluntarily chose to be vaccinated) writes:

For the record, I do not support making the vaccine legally mandatory. You have a right to decide what goes into your body. That’s one of the core principles of medical ethics – and of individual rights. As a corollary, others have the right to decide whether or how to interact with you in person, based on your decisions. A private business may choose to only allow vaccinated people to attend their indoor events, or a private employer may set vaccination as a condition for any in-person work with others. They also have that right.

And of course, everyone has a free speech right to encourage (or discourage) others to becoming vaccinated. Those who wish others to be vaccinated can make their best possible case in favor of the vaccine; those who oppose it can do likewise.

Paul Hseih also makes an interesting point, that just as the principle of individual rights means that private businesses (individuals) can require vaccination as a condition of employment (and association), they can also do the reverse:

For example, one private school in Florida is reportedly requiring that teachers not be vaccinated as a condition of employment, citing safety concerns. This is their right, and this is the flip side of a school’s right to require vaccination as a condition of employment. Similarly, media personality Joe Rogan has publicly encouraged young people not to get vaccinated. I don’t agree with these positions, but I respect their rights to express their views – and the rights of others to offer their best counterarguments (which many are doing.)

Ultimately, if the purpose of a vaccination campaign is to help the country return to “normal,” then a crucial part of that normal is a respect for individual rights and personal medical autonomy.

What about the case for vax mandates in legitimate government organizations, such as the police, military, and courts? That is a thorny issue, I lean on the side that the state can require such vaccines as a condition of employment, especially, in the case of the military (which is voluntary) to protect them from enemy viral attacks. (There could also be exemptions for those with natural immunity.)

Does Capitalism Have a Future?

Leftists utterly control American intellectual culture. They hate capitalism, seek to destroy it and replace it with socialism. Indeed they move regressively toward Communism. Does capitalism have a future? Mark Da Cunha, editor and publisher of Capitalism Magazine, joins Andrew Bernstein and Bosch Fawstin to discuss this critical question.

Binswanger: All Regulation is Over-Regulation

Conservatives complain about “over-regulation,” but all governmental regulation—regulation as such—is destructive and evil. Ayn Rand wrote that the premise of regulation is “the concept that a man is guilty until he is proved innocent by the permissive rubber stamp of a commissar or a Gauleiter.” Dr. Binswanger will argue that government must have “probable cause” before it can use force against someone—and he will discuss how this applies not only to business activity, but also to immigration, “public health” and gun ownership. Recorded live as part of The Objectivist Conference on August 31, 2021.

Ghate & Bayer: Roe vs Wade and the Right to Abortion

Philosophers Onkar Ghate and Ben Bayer have a timely discussion on Roe vs Wade and the right to abortion.

Topics covered include:

  • A brief history of abortion jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade;
  • Ayn Rand’s view of Roe and her support for abortion rights;
  • Why abortion rights are not grounded in a right to privacy;
  • Why activities don’t need to be concretely enumerated to be protected by fundamental rights;
  • Why we need abstract principles to state fundamental legal principles;
  • Why conservative sympathy for the reversal of Lochner v. New York implies a presumption in favor of government power;
  • Whether the potential to feel pain is the basis of rights;
  • How Roe v. Wade tries to balance competing interests, not to protect rights;
  • Why regarding life as sacred from conception is a baseless religious viewpoint;
  • Why it’s arbitrary to regard viability as the limit for justifiable abortion;
  • Whether religion or judicial philosophy motivates Justice Thomas;
  • Whether “individual responsibility” means a woman who chooses to have sex should carry a pregnancy to term;
  • The Supreme Court Justices’ unphilosophical approach.

Mentioned in the discussion are Leonard Peikoff’s essay “Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life,” Ben Bayer’s essays “Ayn Rand’s Radical Case for Abortion Rights” and “Science without Philosophy Can’t Resolve Abortion Debate,” and Tom Bowden’s “Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution.”

Briley: Andrew Bernstein on The Threat of Race War

Philosopher Aaron Briley interviews Dr. Andrew Bernstein, philosopher and author of Heroes, Legends, Champions: Why Heroism Matters, about the rise of two destructive ideologies, how racism is making a cultural comeback, and what he thinks is the antidote to this ominous trend.

Dr. Bernstein has a four part series on the topic in Capitalism Magazine:

America’s Coming Race War: Capitalism’s Enemies Are Pushing America Toward a Race War (Part 1 of 4)
American collectivists/socialists are pushing the country toward race war.

America’s Coming Race War: The Contemporary American Left Embraces Racism (Part 2 of 4)
The contemporary hatred openly unleashed by the Marxist Left against whites–especially males–is eye-opening.

America’s Coming Race War: Post Modernism’s Monster Children The “Alt-Right” (Part 3 of 4)
Post-Modernism literally gave the most educated members of the generally ignorant white supremacist movement an au courant philosophy to intellectually bolster their racist beliefs.

America’s Coming Race War: Embracing Individualism Can Reverse The Racist Trend (Part 4 of 4)
We, the human race, must recognize the truth of–and embrace–the principle of color-blind individualism.

Milgram: When and How Ayn Rand Embraced the Term ‘Capitalism’

Ayn Rand scholar and professor of literature, Shoshana Milgram, writes on “‘Capitalism’: When and How Ayn Rand Embraced the Term (Pt. 1)” (2021 Dec 1, New Ideal):

Capitalism, wrote Ayn Rand, is “the only system geared to the life of a rational being.” She was an outspoken, enthusiastic, uncompromising advocate of capitalism, a self-described “radical for capitalism.” Her 1957 best seller, the novel Atlas Shrugged, celebrates production and business. She is known for eloquent articles on the topic (e.g., “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business”), many of them collected in the 1966 volume Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

But at what age did she first come to view business itself positively? When did she recognize free enterprise as not only an efficient economic system, but as the only moral political system? When did she begin to make salient use of the term “capitalism” and think of it as naming her political ideal? The present article is a biographical answer.  I begin with her youth, continue through her university education and her early Russian publications, cross the Atlantic with her to the United States, follow her reading and writing about individualism in politics, and examine the advocacy in her private and public writing of the principles of free enterprise — and the appearance there of the word “capitalism.”

Read the rest.

 

Steve Koonin: Is There a Climate Emergency?

“The climate is the most complex system on Earth. Is it really possible to project with any precision what it will be like 20, 40, or even 100 years from now? Steve Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science in the Obama Administration, challenges the confident assumptions of climate alarmists.“