Moral hazard
Several of the Big Stories this year involve good old Moral Hazard.

This morning we have More Grim News from ISIS/ISIL/IS/Islamic State, which has supposedly beheaded another meddler. We're supposed to get all Outraged because this meddler had traveled into a war zone where he didn't belong, thus causing the war to last longer.

The British government shows the confusion most clearly. They're trying to shut off the flow of British would-be jihadis by controlling visas and passports; and at the same time they're encouraging British "aid workers" to meddle in foreign wars.

Simple and awful fact: Wars end when one or both sides are either dead; or too tired and hungry to fight; or completely out of weapons.

"Aid workers" postpone those natural consequences. "Aid workers" do not aid anyone. They may save a few lives, but those lives will only enable one or both sides to fight longer. "Aid workers" multiply mass death.

Same with Ebola. Individual doctors save a few lives, but only a competent and strict LOCAL GOVERNMENT can stop the advance of an epidemic. Saving a few lives uses LOCAL energy and resources that might otherwise have helped to save thousands.

And when one of these doctors or nurses returns home and starts spreading the virus in her home country, it's no longer a complex Moral Hazard issue. It's plain and simple murder.

= = = = =

Somewhat later thought: No, it's not primarily a question of Moral Hazard. It's just sanity. Our tyrannical mastermonsters have eliminated inductive logic. If you're in a bar at closing time, you shouldn't be surprised to find yourself in the middle of a knife fight or an unwanted sexual encounter. If you've placed yourself in the middle of a war where people are beheading other people, you shouldn't be surprised to find your head on the chopping block. Until 20 years ago, those statements were so obvious they were hardly worth the trouble of saying. Now

  ¶ 5:45 AM