Monthly Archives: May 2017

What Being Tough on Drug Crime Means

Posted on by

tough on drug crimeAre you, like Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an advocate of being tough on drug crime? If you are; I think you should examine why you feel that way. Some time ago, the nation of Portugal decriminalized drugs. This resulted in a number of outcomes long predicted by those against the War on Drugs. I’d like to take some time to examine these results and also compare and contrast those who gain and those who lose from such policies.

Portugal decriminalized drugs in 2001. What this means is it was still illegal to possess certain amounts of drugs but that people caught with more than that are not prosecuted criminally. Basically, they are given treatment for drug addiction. Thus, they are not tough on drug crime.

What has been the result?

Those people seeking treatment has increased dramatically as one might suspect. That means many people whose lives were destined to be destroyed by drugs were saved. Certainly, not everyone who seeks treatment avoids the ravages of drugs but at least some do. Many lives were saved and improved. Treatment costs money, this is true. But as we’ll see in a moment, it is far less expensive than current treatment costs.

The rate of HIV infection dropped dramatically. This means many people are alive today who would otherwise have died after extended hospitalization. We save lives and enormous amounts of money in the healthcare industry.

Drug related hospitalizations declined. Again, this means lives and money were saved.

Interestingly, the total number of people who used drugs at least once increased, although this may be related to people more willing to admit so in an era of decriminalization. In any case, even if more people tried drugs, fewer became addicted and were harmed by them. It is much like having alcohol at an early age in a supervised fashion. Those who do so are less likely to become alcoholics.

Drug use as a whole remained about equal with the nations around it. Thus, decriminalization did not cause more people to use drugs, one of the main arguments against decriminalization.

Drug use among adolescents declined. The idea that we must protect children is one of the most frequently used arguments by those who oppose legalization or decriminalization. Portugal shows us we accomplish this more readily with decriminalization. If you want to discourage drug use among children, you must support decriminalization.

The drug related criminal workload decreased dramatically. Basically, law enforcement and the court system saw a dramatic saving in time, work, and money because they were no longer prosecuting all those drug cases. People were sent to treatment instead.

The price of drugs decreased dramatically. This means the criminals who sell these drugs are getting far less profit. This takes money out of the hands of criminals which means they are less able to commit crimes.

Finally, the number of drug related deaths dropped immensely. This includes law enforcement officers killed while prosecuting drug dealers and users, and also innocents killed by drug dealers or users.

If I can sum it all up quickly. Decriminalizing drugs saves lives, reduces drug use, saves money, and makes society a better place for almost everyone.

Almost?

Yes, the fact that using and selling certain drugs is a crime does benefit several groups of people.

It benefits the penal system. More people are needed to work in prisons. Companies that supply those prisons have more customers. The penal system in the United States is an enormous business with powerful lobbyists. Decriminalization would cripple their industry.

Law enforcement agencies benefit in some ways. Certainly, we must hire more interdiction officers to police drug use. Entire federal agencies depend on the illegal drug trade to finance their departments. It must be noted that actual officers do not benefit in all ways. They are the ones who prosecute the war on drugs and are often the victims. Their lives are destroyed. They alienate the community they are supposed to police. But, they have jobs. Without the illegal drug trade, many would not have jobs. Police forces would be reduced dramatically and those officers who remained would return to the duties they performed before drugs became their main job.

One of the most important considerations in any policy decisions is the outcome. If the outcome is going to cause tremendous suffering and create significantly more violence and pain, perhaps, you should think twice about backing such policies.

I’m here to tell you, if you are an advocate of being tough on drug crime; you are causing tremendous human suffering. You are destroying the lives of millions of people. I’m certain those who support such policies believe they are helping and making things better. I’m sure they think they are good, decent people.

They aren’t.

Tom Liberman

J.K. Rowling and Stolen Intellectual Property

Posted on by

intellectual propertyThere have been a number of cases involving stolen intellectual property in the news lately and a short story written by Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling is the latest. In addition, episodes from Orange is the New Black were stolen and released after Netflix refused to pay a ransom.

This is an issue that touches close to home as I’m an author. I’ve written nine Sword and Sorcery fantasy books and I’m close to releasing my tenth. I’m certainly not nearly as famous as Rowling nor do I have as much to lose as Netflix, but I like to think of myself as a kindred spirit. What would I do if someone broke into my cloud account and stole the latest version of my book? Or, as in the case of Rowling, physically stole the manuscript I’m proofing? What if they released it for free on the internet? What if they attempted to extort money from me before doing so?

Rowling is imploring people not to purchase the stolen story which is, I suspect, about the only thing she can do. Anyone who wants to read the story and not pay for it, will be able to do so. In fact, anyone who wants to read any of her novels or watch any of her movies can illegally download them for free. It’s not particularly difficult. A collector can purchase they actual, physical story as a keepsake.

We live in a world in which intellectual property is all but impossible to protect. Even if television episodes, novels, movies, music, or any other information is not stolen; once it is released to the public, the ability to copy and redistribute it is all but unstoppable. People who want to purchase it from third parties who don’t own the intellectual rights will always find a way to do so.

What’s interesting about intellectual property theft, as opposed to physical theft, is the person stealing the information wants it. The exception being those who steal with the intent of extortion. Most people are not downloading music, movies, or novels because they plan to resell to a third party. They want to listen to, watch, or read the content. Thus, an appeal like Rowling’s makes an impact.

That’s reality and it’s important for those of us producing such content to understand it. Certainly, the Motion Picture and Music industries have lobbied Congress and gotten stringent and punitive piracy laws enacted. Some people have paid large fines for stealing music and other files but it hasn’t slowed down illegal downloading.

I can rely on the government to pass laws protecting intellectual property. I can rely on cyber-police to attempt to enforce those laws. I can rely on the court system to prosecute those few they catch in violation. What I can’t rely on is any of these methods to stop the theft.

The only way to stop most people from illegally purchasing or downloading such content is to ask them not to do so and to price the content in a way that is friendly. If Rowling were to put her story for sale at $20 a copy, that tempts people to steal it. However, if she places it on sale for $1.99, it is a very short story written on a single A5 postcard, I think the vast majority of her fans would simply shell out the two bucks. Why bother stealing when you know you can support the artist for a nominal price?

There will always be those who refuse to pay even a small price for such content but the various industries and artists have to balance their own profit margin with the potential for theft. As awful as it sounds to moderate our price because of thieves, there really doesn’t seem to be any other option. I currently cannot charge $20 for my novels because I’m an unknown, but if I was famous and my novels were hugely popular I might be able to do so. I wouldn’t.

That’s the only pragmatic solution to this problem. Make content cheap enough that regular people are willing to purchase it. That and use strong passwords!

What else is there to do?

Tom Liberman

Globalization China Style One Belt One Road

Posted on by

one belt one roadThere is a lot of strong sentiment about Globalization in the United States and other parts of the western world. The United States and some other European countries are moving away from it but China is moving forward with something called One Belt One Road (OBOR). This creates an interesting situation.

I’m not going to try and convince you of the virtues of such initiatives. That’s your decision and nothing I say will likely change your opinion. What I will talk about is the result of China moving forward while the United States retreats, that’s something it would be wise to understand.

Globalization is largely about economic development through trade. When raw materials are developed in one location, moved to a second location to be processed, shipped to a third location to be assembled, and finally transferred to a market; it becomes cheaper to produce said products. This is undeniable. Any single nation doesn’t have the ability to do all those things as cheaply or efficiently as a group of nations.
In the last decades, China has initiated massive projects around the globe and particular in Asia, designed to speed this process. A massive port in Genoa, highways to connect the biggest markets in Asia, railways in Nairobi, even canals in Nicaragua. The plans are enormous and there is some doubt they can be achieved, but it is a bold move. If Asia, parts of Europe, Africa, and South America succeed with these projects it means enormous employment and wealth. And China is leading the way.

There is, of course, the potential some or all of these projects will fail in their goals.

The populations of United States and some of western Europe are clearly in an Anti-Globalization mood. They’ve elected leaders who advocate an Us First policy. The leaders of United States are moving forward with plans to disentangle our nation from such projects.
Again, I don’t want to tell you what China is planning and implementing is good or bad. I just want people who advocate Us First to be aware that it creates a void. Where there is a void, something will fill it. In this case, it is China.

These projects are going forward. China has a huge number of highly educated college graduates and these are the people who will be developing, innovating, and leading these projects. When the young people of other nations start working on these projects, they will be working for Chinese supervisors. They will take trips to Beijing to discuss the plans. China will become the center of commerce in the world.
Again, this might be a bad thing. All the projects could go badly and China might go bankrupt. Those who advocate an Us First policy might end up laughing all the way to the bank.

On the other hand, the projects might create enormous wealth for the countries and the people who take part. The European, African, and Asian nations that participate in these projects might reap rewards in the trillions of dollars. The people of these nations might see reduced cost of goods and all the benefits that come with it.

The United States once led the world in projects like this. We, through our votes, expressed the idea that we don’t want to do so anymore. That’s fine. That’s what living in a Representative Republic is all about. We the People get to, through our proxies, decide.

Just be aware of the potential ramifications of what you are deciding, and the possibilities for good and ill.

Tom Liberman

It is National Fill in the Blank Day and that is Good

Posted on by

national holidayThis month is apparently National Hamburger Month. At least that’s what Facebook tells me. Or more accurately, one of my friends on Facebook.

These things are often called Hallmark Holidays because they encourage people to purchase greeting cards. Hallmark denies responsibility for this phenomenon, but it cannot be denied it exists. The commercialization of various products is largely the reason such days litter our social media walls. Every industry worth their salt … hey, is there a National Salt Day? Let’s find out! Off to the internet.

Now, I want you to know this was a complete coincidence. I’m writing this post on May 12, 2017 and I just found out National Salt Day is May 17! That is hilarious. There is also National Salt Awareness week in late February and early March but that is actually a holiday trying to keep us from buying something. So, it doesn’t count.

Is there any end in sight? A simple answer, no. As long as there is profit to be made, we’ll have more and more of these consumer holidays. And, to be honest, it’s not a bad thing. If a company wants to promote their product and they find a good way to do it, why shouldn’t they? No one is forced to purchase Salt on National Salt day. You don’t have to buy a Mother’s Day card, flowers, or candy. Consumerism is a wonderful thing because it is largely voluntary. We buy things we want.

It is only when capitalism is constrained that we should start to be worried. When one company is not allowed to sell their product because it competes with another favored by the leaders of a country, then there is a problem.

We buy the things we want because they are priced attractively. This is the very nature of consumerism. We too often blame the corporate world for causing us to eat too much, go too far into debt, or something else related to capitalism. I won’t deny these things exist. We have an unhealthy population in the United States because of abundantly available food of a type we like. People go into debt because they want things, this overwhelms their financial good sense.

If I happened to want a nice hamburger, I might use the excuse that this is National Hamburger Week to purchase one. I’d be interested in seeing the metrics involved with many of these new holidays. Certainly, we see an enormous uptick in sales of flowers around Mother’s Day and ties around Father’s Day. If not, we wouldn’t see all these new holidays appearing on our calendar.

Naturally they are somewhat self-defeating in that as we see more and more of these holidays appear, we become inured to them. That’s perfectly normal as well and eventually someone will find a new way to market their product.

Here is an interesting theoretical question. If the government banned such days, would it reduce consumption of that particular item? I think the answer is yes, but no one is calling for such bans. Mother’s Day is a huge boon for the flower industry but we don’t see consumer protection groups advocating the end of the holiday to prevent people from spending their money.

On the other hand, we do see all kinds of groups promoting the outlawing of particular items, be they drugs or simply large soda containers. The thrust of these laws is that we don’t know what is good for ourselves. That we lack the impulse control to stop self-destructive purchases. This is true. We do lack such control, but solutions based on legal remedies are doomed to fail.

We must teach people impulse control. We must educate them on financial realities. These are the methods by which we improve the lives of citizens, by helping them improve themselves.

It’s just not the role of government to protect us from ourselves, or made up national holidays.

Tom Liberman

Steve Harvey and the Message vs the Delivery

Posted on by

steve harveyI just read an interesting story about entertainer Steve Harvey and a memo he released to his staffers. It’s getting a lot of bad press. What I find fascinating is that his basic message is perfectly reasonable. It is the delivery that gives rise, and reasonably so, to the criticism.

That difference between the message itself and the manner in which it was delivered is what I’d like to examine today. Let’s pretend we are on the receiving end of the memo in question. Let’s imagine our reaction depending upon the way it is written, rather than the content. We are an employee of Harvey or perhaps a perspective employee reading the memo in the news. How would we react? What actions would we take depending if we heard the basic premise or, instead, read the actual memo?

Now, as to the memo itself. Apparently, Harvey is often approached by staff while in his dressing room and during his time in the makeup chair. These disruptions make it difficult for him to focus on his job and cut dramatically into his free time. That makes perfect sense to me. When you are the lead talent on a television show, it’s important to manage your time properly. You can’t have unscheduled meetings throughout the day or you will find your performance suffers. Harvey is completely right about this.

Yet, his message repeatedly states the same point over and over again. He starts off in an extremely friendly tone but quickly degenerates into all capital shouting including threats of removal for as much as opening his dressing room door.

The first five paragraphs of the new rules basically list the same rule five times. Please don’t do A. If you do A, I will be angry. Don’t do A. If you do A you will be punished. Has anyone ever sat you down and told you the same thing over and over again? It’s incredibly condescending and annoying. The entire message could have been delivered in short but coherent memo not more than three paragraphs long. It could have been sent in a polite fashion or perhaps a firm fashion. That would be up to Harvey to decide.

It’s so fascinating to imagine myself on the receiving end of such a memo and my reaction to it. I’d like you to do the same. Let’s say you actually get the ranting, repetitive, all cap filled memo. If it was me I’d be thinking about a new job. The person who wrote it is clearly unstable. The person who wrote it most likely has anger management issues. It’s clear to me the person who wrote this doesn’t have impulse control and working for such a person is a nightmare. Even if I desperately needed the job, I’d immediately be putting my resume out there. I’d certainly think twice before taking a job for the person who wrote that memo. I would imagine anyone working for Harvey pretty much lives in constant fear of a mercurial and autocratic maniac.

On the other hand, if someone simply told me that Harvey doesn’t like being approached while in his dressing room or during makeup, I’d simply shrug my shoulders and say it sounds pretty reasonable. I’d go about my day without as much as another thought.

Now, maybe I’m fooling myself. I don’t actually work for Harvey. But the stark difference in the reaction I think I’d have is profound. If you are angry about a situation and thinking of writing a memo, I’d urge you to think about the situation. What impression do you want people to have of you?

It’s much more than the message itself, it’s the manner in which it is delivered.

Something to consider at least.

Tom Liberman

Why is Stealth Marketing Illegal?

Posted on by

stealth marketingThe Federal Trade Commission is apparently quite concerned people are mentioning they like particular products without revealing they are paid for these remarks. It’s called Stealth Marketing. Basically, someone who has a large number of Social Media followers is paid by a business to mention a particular product.

The FTC requires that people who do so use #ad or #sponsor to indicate they are being paid for their opinion. Why does it matter? Why would government feel the need to secure us from this apparently dire threat?

Certainly, there is all sorts of Stealth Marketing going on in movies and television shows from which the government does not see fit to protect us. In addition, every time an athlete wears a jersey or shirt, swings a golf club, or hits a ball it is an advertisement for the apparel company that pays the university, league, or athlete. Every time an actor wears particular clothes to some award ceremony it is because they are paid to do so.

I could ask why there is apparently a different standard for the two but I just don’t care. Why on earth does the government care? Why is it against the law? It’s utter insanity. The government, as usual, couches their blatant interference in terms of protecting us. If we don’t force them to tell you they are paid sponsors, you won’t know! We’re doing it to save you from them!

In reality it is just another way for the government to justify its existence. There are apparently people at the FTC spending their time monitoring this situation and we pay the salaries of those people. Congress likely had to have hearings and who knows how much time went into writing these regulations. All to what end? From what are we being protected? Who does Stealth Marketing hurt?

Who cares if a celebrity says they like something on their Twitter account and they are being paid to do so? How is ensuring we know it’s an advertisement any different? I think Emily Blunt is a talented actress. If she happens to endorse Yves Saint Laurent Opium perform why do I care if she mentions it in a Twitter post as opposed to a commercial? Wait, there is a fragrance called Opium? Seriously? That’s awesome. I’m surprised the government hasn’t outlawed that.

Will I suddenly be less inclined to buy a product that a celebrity I admire uses if I know they are sponsored by the manufacturer? Gosh, I was all set to by that Opium perfume for my pretend girlfriend Emily Blunt but I found out she really doesn’t use it. She just shills for it on television. Now I won’t. Thank you, government for saving me from this terrible decision to purchase a product of my own free will.

I reiterate, who cares? Why do we care? What business is it of the government to tell a person they must reveal if they are just saying they enjoy a product or if they are being paid to say they enjoy a product? What’s the practical difference?

Who is hurt? The consumer is purchasing a product that was promoted. Whether it’s a paid promotion or a genuine promotion is irrelevant.

The people of the United States are fully capable of making their purchasing decisions without being protected by the government.

Tom Liberman

Parking Tickets Shouldn’t be the Cost of Doing Business

Posted on by

parking ticketsThe city of New York is crowded and parking is at a premium. Because of this the city rakes in millions of dollars in revenue from parking tickets. How many millions? Over $500 million last year and on pace to top that by $100 million this year. For companies that have to work in the city, this is largely considered to be a business expense. Want to work in New York city? Put a few thousand in the budget for parking fines.

You can’t provide a service in the city without racking up thousands of dollars in parking tickets. Tickets are such an important factor in doing business in the city that they actually created an industry of their own, people who get the fines reduced or removed. All for what? Money. That’s a big problem. A business wants to make money and this is a good and normal thing. The role of government is far different.

One of the primary functions of municipal government is to make life better for those who live and do business in the city. It is not to harass them and fund government coffers with fines. I understand the city is crowded and people will park illegally. However, I wonder how many lovely parking lots could be built for $500 million?

That’s what a responsible government does. It sees a need that can’t easily be solved by local businesses and people and goes about fixing the problem. At least that is what government is supposed to be about. Naturally, government has simply become a money churning machine. It takes money from citizens and redistributes it to a chosen few.

When government pursues a course of action simply designed to sustain itself, it has failed. Yes, parking in cities like New York, Chicago, London, Mexico City, and other crowded metropolis’s is a serious problem. So is traffic. The function of government is to resolve these issues, not profit off of them. The city of New York issues citation for good reason. When cars and trucks are parked illegally, it causes congestion on the roads. Businesses use vehicles to delivery their goods and transport personnel from one location to another. Parking is all but impossible to find because there are far too many vehicles and not enough parking spaces.

The answer is not easy. Every parking lot takes up space which otherwise might be used for a residence or business. Underground parking lots are expensive. That being said there must be creative solutions available. Perhaps a massive parking lot in central New York built underground with rentable powered sleds that allow transport of large items a nominal distance. The lot has a small fee associated with it paying for upkeep and monitoring. I find it impossible to believe the many people who do business in the city wouldn’t be happy to use such a lot, rather than pay fines and clog up traffic.

In addition, it means fewer people must be employed by the government to issue the parking tickets. To roam the city continuously looking for violations. Fewer people must process the tickets.

The end result is always an incredibly important consideration. If the businesses that work in the city simply assume paying parking tickets are part of standard operations, that means traffic gets clogged up anyway. The tickets aren’t successfully achieving the desired result.

Creative solutions to parking issues isn’t my specialty, I admit as much. But I imagine, with absolute conviction, that $500 million might well be able to create and maintain solutions that not only unburden those doing business in the city but also help those who must get from Point A to Point B by actually helping alleviate the traffic problems.

I’m certain there are other people with great ideas out there that don’t involve tickets, but I’m not sure the municipal governments want to consider them. That’s a shame, for all us.

Tom Liberman

Sears was too Big to Fail but It Did

Posted on by

SearsI’d guess the majority of people under my age, fifty-two, don’t remember how dominate Sears, Roebuck and Company was in the retail industry. Sears was enormous. Too Big to Fail according to a metric that seems to be prevalent in this political era. Sears has pretty much failed and it hasn’t affected the economy or jobs in a significant way. There’s a lesson to be learned in that.

First let’s take a look at how dominant was Sears prior to the Wal-Mart and Internet era. At the turn of the century, that’s nineteenth century youngsters, people purchased things from their local general store. The selection was limited and the price was exorbitant. Then came the Sears Catalog. It changed everything in the same way as did Amazon and online shopping. People no longer had to rely on their local store. People simply sent an order form in and, within a few weeks, they had their item. It was revolutionary. It was the beginning of the end for small stores across what was then the largely rural United States.

Sears grew from that initial catalog until they were the dominant retail sales company in the country. There were, and remain, Sears stores in every city. The Sears Tower was for a time the largest building in the world. They employed huge numbers of people and their sales methods allowed others all over the country to purchase the goods they wanted at an affordable price.

I feel confident suggesting that if someone back in 1980 told Congress Sears was going to fail, there would have been panic. The thought of all those lost jobs and the fact that so many wouldn’t be able to purchase cheap goods would have caused an immediate effect. We would have seen a rush of public committee meetings, speeches about how vital was Sears to the economy, and a plethora of grim looking politicians pledging to save us from this impending disaster.

Happily, no one knew. Wal-Mart came along. The Internet came along. Sears pursued a bad business model and now they stand on the brink of insolvency. They are closing stores all over the country but, and this is important, politicians don’t care. It’s the natural course of business in their eyes and, for once, they are right.

Businesses fail. When executives make poor decisions, when the nature of the market changes, when circumstances and luck go against it, a business fails. The vital factor is that it failed for reasons. Another business model can succeed and provide profit, and people who pursue a good strategy will fill the void.

If the car manufacturers had been allowed to fail someone else would have stepped up to take their place. If the financial institutions that badly managed their affairs had been allowed to fail, others would have ably stepped up to replace them. For every job lost to the failing company, another one would have been created, if not two.

There is no such thing as too big to fail. What exists is too much vested interest in politics. The businesses that were going to fail had the Democratic and Republican Nation parties in their pockets. It was in the interest of the two major political parties to save those companies. The politicians and their parties don’t want the gravy train to stop.

The lesson to be learned is that there is no too big to fail. Failure is as much a part of capitalism as is success. Where one business fails, for whatever reason, another arises with a better model. Where one job goes away, two more appear.

Does it hurt for those who lose their job? Is it painful for the executives who have failed? Yes.

That’s capitalism.

Tom Liberman

Battlegrounds Anarchy and Benevolent Dictatorship

Posted on by

battlegroundsAmong my few pursuits in life is watching people play video games on Twitch.tv and recently a new game called PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds has stormed the site. It is being played by tens of thousands of watched by more. One of the coolest features is the ability create a server where the host sets up many of the rules.

The games so created are a strange blend of Anarchy and Totalitarianism and I find the combination interesting. By technical definition, no two political philosophies could be further apart. In an Anarchic state, there is no real central government, just a collection of individuals with like interests. In a Totalitarian state the government makes all the rules.

What happens when a streamer on Twitch creates their own Battlegrounds server is that other players join and begin to play. When the host, or benevolent dictator as I prefer to call her or him, sets up the game, there are generally rules. Yet, there is no way to enforce these rules.

One example is a Zombie Apocalypse style game. In such a game one team of players is allowed to equip whatever weapons and armor they desire. These are the survivors. The other team must strip naked and grab only melee weapons like pans. There are several other rules designed to create a fairly balanced environment where both sides have a good chance of victory but, as I said, there is no real way to enforce these restrictions.

If a Zombie player chose to pick up a gun and start shooting, there is no mechanism to prevent it. Certainly, the benevolent dictator can alert other players and they can gang up on the person not playing by the rules. However, if a half dozen or so players decided to disregard the rules, the game would be largely ruined.

You must remember it is in the best interest of the players to have an evenly matched game. This is the absolute key to making such a system work. It must be understood that a poorly balanced game, in which one side completely destroys the other, just isn’t as much fun as a finely balanced match. It’s not much fun for the winning side and even less for the losers.

In these two things, we have a combination of a benevolent dictatorship and anarchy. The players who join the Battlegrounds game do so because they enjoy spending time with like-minded people. They agree to a set of rules designed to make the game more enjoyable. The rules actually change as balance shifts but the players largely follow them. The dictator sees how a session goes and tweaks the rules in order to create a game in which all players enjoy themselves.

No one has to join the server. Participation is completely voluntary and if a dictator creates a set of rules in which one team or group has an unfair advantage, she or he would soon find it impossible to get people to play the game. And, here’s the good news. It largely works. Sure, there might be an isolated case of someone breaking the rules now and again, but the vast majority of players abide by the rules and have a fantastic time while doing so, even when their team turns out to be the loser. For winning is less important than having fun, and much fun is had. Much.

Can you imagine a world that followed this pattern? People setting up systems in which everyone benefits. The people that create the most beneficial systems, those that are fun and fair, get more and more players. Those who create environments that are not so, are left behind. Would you want to live in such a world?

Certainly, we wouldn’t all choose to live on the same Battlegrounds server. Some people enjoy one thing and others might relish something else. As long as someone was creating environments, we could pick and choose that which we liked the most.

The world we live in today is not like this.

However, I believe we are headed toward such a world. I think the boundaries we call nations are at the beginning of the end. We separate ourselves by arbitrary differences like race, geography, gender, age, and more. In the future world, we will all be connected through technology, and we will choose with whom we wish to associate.

A fun, fair, and well-managed server succeeds because people join it. Seems like a good system to me.

Tom Liberman

The Decline of Golf

Posted on by

decline of golfThe year was 2006 and Tiger Woods won The Open Championship, the PGA Championship, and six other events. The game of golf had 30 million regular players. Courses both public and private were being opened and designed all over the country. The world was bullish on golf and apparently rightly so.

Since then the total number of players has dropped by more than five million despite the population rising. More golf courses are closing than opening and only a small number of highly exclusive courses are even in the planning stages anymore.

What happened? It’s a complex question and there are many factors involved; including lack of star power, economics, and the time and difficulty required to play. What I’d like to focus on is the nature of economics. If golf was banking or car manufacturing there would be panic in Washington D.C. and in statehouses across the country. How can we save golf? It employs so many people. It provides an entertainment outlet for many more. We can’t let it fail.

A once thriving industry is struggling badly. People just don’t want to play anymore, for whatever reason. That’s the nature of economics and capitalism. The fact courses are closing all over and the government isn’t intervening is exactly how it should work. If a golf course cannot generate enough revenue to stay open, it should close. This means economic hardship for the employees. It means I have fewer options when I want to play a round.

What will be the result? The golf industry is coming up with innovate ways to solve the problem. There is talk of six hole courses. Courses with bigger holes to make playing a round easier. There are many ideas being discussed and implemented. Perhaps some of them will work and a new generation of golfers will once again fill courses, or perhaps it will go the way of the horse and buggy. I don’t know. I can’t know. No one knows. That’s the nature of this world.

What government often tries to do is alleviate this uncertainty. It is not merely economics. It is lives. When the golf industry falters, any number of people are affected in a negative way. Government tries to assure people it will be fine. They will prop up the golf industry so no one loses their job. So there is always a place to play. It’s a reassuring thought. Gosh, it’ll be great. We’ll never have to worry about the course closing. I’ll always have a job and be able to pay for the food on my children’s table. Thanks, government.

The problem is that it doesn’t work. When the government attempts to prop up a failing business or industry they are merely delaying the inevitable. When a business fails through natural capitalistic forces, it does so in a way that allows for it to be replaced. If people are not playing golf, they are doing something else. In this other thing there are jobs, there is security.

I think it’s important to consider where we would be today if the government hadn’t intervened in the Global Financial Crisis of 2015. Many of the car dealerships and the ancillary suppliers would have had a hard time, but now we’d have vigorous young companies established in their place. The industry would have been reborn, people need cars, that is not going away. Perhaps in the innovative storm that followed the demise of the industry we’d have fully automatic cars by now.

It is clear to me if those banks that made foolish loans had simply been allowed to go bankrupt, others would have risen in their place. And the new ones would probably not have charged me nearly as much to simply withdraw my money from my own accounts.

It is important to remember one vital fact. While failure is a disaster for one person, it is opportunity for a dozen more. It eliminates the bad and allows for new ideas to enter the market. These new companies are agile, vigorous, and provide a service wanted by the people. This is why capitalism, largely unfettered, is such a good thing for all of us.

The decline of golf is an important lesson in economics.

Tom Liberman

Those in the Last Year of Life are not Aware of It

Posted on by

last year of lifeThe healthcare debate often focuses on the undeniable fact that people who are in the last year of  life spend a huge amount of money trying to stay alive. This is one of the primary driving forces in the cost of healthcare. While it is true, I find the point being made, and the people making it, quite disturbing.

Someone in their last year of life does not know they are going to die. They want to stay alive. There are plenty of cases where people are given medical care and survive for many years if not decades. When you argue that these people are going to die anyway, just let them, you are engaging in, essentially, murder.

When I read one article or another making this argument it seems to me the person so writing is promoting Death Panels. Basically, a group of people on a panel needs to examine the prognosis of a patient and if it determines the outcome is likely death, withhold treatment.

I would think the vast majority of people would reject this out of hand. And yet I see it suggested in a veiled fashion almost every day. I read an article talking about how people who are very sick are the problem. Again, it’s true that these people use a much larger share of the money designated for healthcare. I don’t pretend it is false. I just don’t like the implication of the argument.

The demographics of our country are absolutely the driving force of the healthcare crisis. We have an aging and increasingly unhealthy population. There is nothing we can do about the passage of time. People get older. We can focus on proper diet and exercise to prevent a huge chunk of our healthcare issues. That’s a problem with a solution. So, why aren’t we doing so? I’ll save that discussion for another day.

I just want you to be aware of what you are really saying when you talk about the last year of a person’s life being a problem. There are those who actually argue for death panels. There are those who think people over a certain age should voluntarily turn themselves into the disintegration chambers. I have a bit of respect for those who so advocate. At least they are being honest about their intentions. Those who lament about the last year of life but pretend they are not proposing Death Panels don’t fool me. I find them disgusting.

I hope we will never reach a point in this country where we value treating sick people less than we value money. I hope people will never feel the need to rid our society of those who they deem less worthy of life. We’ve seen that before, and I’m fully aware that it can happen again.

So, when I see article after article reiterating the problem of people in the last year of their life, I grow concerned. I hope you do as well.

Tom Liberman

Is Satanic Patriotism as Good as any Other?

Posted on by

satanic patriotismA satanic monument is scheduled to be placed in the Veteran’s Memorial Park of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The entire episode came about because a Christian monument was placed in the same location and the Satanic Temple decided they wanted to honor the fallen with their own memorial. So, is Satanic Patriotism as good as any other kind of patriotism?

There’s a lot of talk about separation of church and state and the Constitution of the United States but I wanted to examine the more personal issue of how we feel when someone we despise does something ostensibly good. When we see Satanic Patriotism.

The monument the Satanic Temple plans to place can only be described as poignant. If it had Christian or non-denominational symbols on the side rather than Satanic, I feel confident in saying it would receive universal acclaim. The sentiment to honor fallen soldiers is also something that would normally be applauded. It’s the people placing the monument who are raising ire.

It should be noted the organization that manages the park, including many veterans, has apparently been very open and welcoming to the monument. That’s pretty cool, but the reality is a lot of people are quite opposed to it and vocally so.

Before we leap on those angry people, take a moment to examine how much you like that Ku Klux Klan sign sponsoring the highway you drive by on a regular basis.

Is someone all bad? Is anyone all good? If Satanists want to honor fallen veterans isn’t that a good thing? If the KKK wants to clean up a section of the highway or a river, isn’t that a good thing? I think this is an important question that has ramifications far beyond one monument.

One of the ways organizations like ISIS succeed is when they help people. They provide jobs and medical services to those in worn-torn nations. We certainly don’t like ISIS, they clearly engage in many horrific activities. But when they sponsor medical care to wounded children, isn’t that a good thing?

We have this tendency to put people and organizations into categories and that can be extremely damaging. When we decide Republicans are all good or President Trump is all bad, we miss out on opportunity and acquiesce to damaging legislation. If you are a Republican and support any piece of legislation from those you generally support, it is certain you are promoting some bad laws. If you hate President Trump and oppose every idea he puts forward, you are clearly working against some good legislation.

Not only are you promoting bad or failing to support good, but you are creating a world of black and white. Good or evil. This sort of categorization is what allows group like ISIS to thrive. When we as a nation refuse to admit our enemies engage in some very reasonable activities, we are making a mistake.

I ask anyone who is opposed to this monument, anyone who plans to vandalize this tribute to our veterans, anyone who would be opposed to the same monument if it was sponsored by White Nationalists; why?

Would the world be a better place if we simply encouraged people and organizations who performed good deeds? If we discouraged those who do wrong?

Certainly, we can debate what is a good deed or what is a bad. We can say people do good things for the wrong reason, but does that make it less of a noble deed?

If you denounce a good thing because you don’t like the person who did it, well, who is the bad person?

Tom Liberman

Emma Watson Wins Best Actor Award

Posted on by

emma watsonEmma Watson played the character of Belle in the hugely popular and well-reviewed live action Beauty and the Beast movie. It’s not a huge surprise that she won the Best Actor in a Movie category at the MTV Awards show. Well, wait, yes, it is. Best Actor in a Movie? Yep, no more Best Male Actor and Best Female Actor and that’s got some people jumping for joy and others up in arms in rage.

Gender neutral awards. That word, gender, is a bit of a buzzword these days. Gender neutral. Same sex marriage. These are topics people feel strongly about and I suspect they are carrying those passions into this particular situation. They believe this yet another attack on what they consider their moral imperative. I don’t think it is. I think it’s a long overdue change.

The question I think is most pertinent is to wonder why we have any gender, race, creed, religion, or age specific awards? Is there a Best Male Actor Over the Age of 65 with Yellow Skin who Believes in Jesus as His Savior category? Of courses not, nor should there be. It seems self-evident to me that in a field like acting, gender has no role in excellence. The gender of the actor in no way gives them an advantage or disadvantage.

Many gender related restrictions are designed to allow women to participate. If there was no women’s basketball team, then there would be few women basketball players. Men are bigger and stronger than women and this gives them an inherent advantage. We’ve long seen that a woman who can compete with men is allowed to do so. We have hockey goalies, placekickers, pitchers, golfers, and other athletes who are women competing with men quite well. As they should. What we’re trying to avoid is bigger and stronger men competing and dominating physical events designed for women. That is also reasonable. We have the Special Olympics for mentally disadvantaged people. That also makes sense.

Where there is no inherent advantage, I’m convinced we should eliminate any gender based consideration. I don’t even see how this is controversial. It seems so obvious. Both men and women should support this even though their competition will now be doubled. There will be twice as many people competing for the same number of awards.

Think about what drives us to be our best. It’s competition. When we must compete against others we get better. If you increase the competitive field, the only result is the best has to be even better. We all benefit from this competition in any number of ways.

I strongly suspect people on both side of the political aisle will not like this idea. There are so-called Liberals who will note women will not win as many awards and be angry. There will be so-called Conservatives who think this is an attack on their moral and religious beliefs.

This united front convinces me even more that I’m correct, that MTV has done the right thing.

We should all be judged by our ability. This is the heart of equality. I’m all for that.

Tom Liberman

Hotel Lobbyist Set out to Destroy Expedia and Priceline

Posted on by

hotelHotel Lobbyist are trying to destroy competitors with good old American Ingenuity, Twenty-First Century style. In the old days, we made better products. Today we simply lobby Congress to legislate our rivals out of existence.

Do you like booking your travel adventures through sites like Expedia or Priceline? If you do then you are one of many. It’s incredibly convenient and allows you to shop around quite easily. Instead of visiting the websites of dozens of hotels looking for a good price; all the information you need is in one place. This means you generally get a good price for your travel. Can you guess who doesn’t like that?

The hotel industry, of course. They’d prefer if you had to pick your room with as little information as possible about the price. It serves their interest if you pay more than the lowest rate. They don’t want you to know you can get the same room at a nearby hotel for a lower price. They don’t want you to know they are actually selling their vacancies at lower prices. They also don’t want to pay Expedia and Priceline when you book a room through them. That’s fine. That’s in their interest. What’s not fine is how they hope to resolve this issue.

The American Hotel and Lodging Association is planning to lobby Congress with the aim of getting the websites Expedia and Priceline dramatically restricted if not outlawed. The government agency that has oversight over this industry is the Federal Trade Commission. I find it a travesty this group has the right to tell hotels and travel sites how to conduct business, but I’ll save that rant for another day.

The argument AHLA makes is that Expedia and Priceline represent a monopoly on the travel business. That the various hotels are forced to go through them to list their rooms because there are no other options. Expedia and Priceline charge a fee to the hotel when a customer books a room through their agency. The hotels would, obviously, like to avoid that fee and have you book directly with them.

The goal is to have the current administration appoint friendly members to the FTC in order to get regulations passed that will hamper Expedia and Priceline.

I could spend a lot of time arguing the merits, or lack thereof, of this case but I’d like to keep my focus on the methods. This is standard operating procedure in the modern business world. Lobby government officials to change the rules to benefit you. That’s the most effective method of growing a business these days.

This is a product of government oversight. If the FTC didn’t have the ability to regulate the hotel industry then the entire problem disappears. At that point, the AHLA doesn’t have the ability to destroy their competitors through legislation. The argument is that we need such regulation to keep people safe from the predatory nature of those in businesses. The problem is such regulations have long since gone from protecting people to protecting the very industry they are designed to regulate.

This is the way business is done. Government can destroy competitors far more readily than can the difficult process of providing a great product at a price people want. Crony Capitalism is its name and it is spreading quickly.

The more power we vest in government to regulate us, the more interest business has in perverting government to protect them instead. When it’s easier and cheaper to destroy an enemy by lobbying Congress than practicing good business models, people lose.

How will it effect your financial well-being if these plans succeed? Something to consider.

Tom Liberman

Trump and the Constitutional Crisis of Marijuana

Posted on by

marijuanaTrump dropped the big one. No, not Health Care. Medical Marijuana. I’ve been speaking with friends about this issue since before the election and I’m of the opinion it has the greatest potential to destroy the United States. My friends mostly laugh at me but read on and see if I’m being an alarmist or not.

Legal marijuana. President Trump and his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, have been talking about enforcing the federal marijuana laws against states that have legalized or decriminalized it.

Why is this such a potentially destructive issue? Because it brings State’s Right to the front in a way we haven’t seen in generations. A number of states have made their will apparent. The people of those states want legal marijuana. The federal government disagrees. The question then becomes how the federal government enforces the restriction. That’s what I believe to be extremely dangerous.

There are some nonviolent methods available to the federal government. Banking restrictions on the funds generated by legal marijuana for example. That being said, the main option the federal government has is interdiction. This means sending federal Drug Enforcement Agency officers into various states to arrest owners and employees of such stores. This means there is the potential, I would say likelihood, of law enforcement officers for the various states defending these locations. That could easily lead to armed encounters.

We might see federal law enforcement officers killing or being killed by state law enforcement officers. What you must remember is that federal law enforcement officers also have loyalty to the various states to whom they associate themselves. A DEA officers who hails from California, for example, might well be in an armed confrontation with his brother who is a police officer from the state.

When was the last time brother fought brother in the United States? I know I’m sounding a shrill alarm and nothing has happened to date. I’ve been listening to the words of President Trump since he was campaigning and I’ve also read much of what Attorney General Sessions has said in the past. They are both strong believers that drugs are tearing the fabric of our nation apart.

I disagree, it is the illegal status of drugs that is causing all the problems. If we followed the various state’s leads by decriminalizing drug use, this entire problem would largely resolve itself. That clearly does not seem to be the aim of this administration. They want heavy-handed law enforcement. I, for one, don’t doubt the resolve of the people of California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and other states who have made marijuana legal. I don’t think they’re going to simply back down.

If the states refuse to back down, then the federal government has two options. They can reverse course and stop enforcing marijuana crimes or they can escalate the situation by sending in more troops.

If hostilities between federal and state law enforcement agencies becomes a reality, that is a serious issue. It could potentially destroy the United States as we know it. The western states could simply leave the Union. Another Civil War could begin if the remaining states decided to prevent such an exodus.

Again, I know I’m setting off extreme alarm bells here. I’m probably being overly dramatic but this is the first time in my life I’ve seen the potential for armed conflict between the federal government and the various states. Once that starts, it’s impossible to predict how or where it will end.

All over a simple weed that grows just about everywhere in the country. All over one group of people who think they should be able to tell legally competent adults not to smoke it.

Tom Liberman

Too Much Alcohol in Bombay Sapphire

Posted on by

bombay sapphireThe Canadian Food Inspection Agency recently issued a recall order of a batch of the delightful, I speak from personal experience, Bombay Sapphire Gin. It turns out one batch was bottled before it was diluted leaving it at double the alcohol content. Jokes aside, having twice as much alcohol in a bottle is a dangerous situation. People will drink far more alcohol than intend. The recall is appropriate.

Now, I’m a Libertarian so you’re probably asking yourself why I would be talking about this situation. It seems to be an advertisement for government oversight. What the headlines and even the articles themselves fail to mention is who noticed the problem and reported it. It wasn’t until I actually followed the links back to the recall statement itself that I found out what I suspected the moment I read the headline. Bacardi themselves discovered the error and reported it.

I strongly suspect most people will assume exactly the opposite. People will believe the CFIA routinely tests all batches of food and alcohol and they noticed the issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. The agency doesn’t have anywhere near the money or facilities to perform that kind of testing. They rely on reports of illness and the vendors themselves.

This illusion the CFIA, or a similar agency, is on the watch looking for any contamination or other problem with your food gives the impression of safety. It doesn’t actually make you any safer. The people of Canada are no safer today than if Bacardi themselves had issued the alert. The same goes for almost every case of food poisoning. The agency issuing the alert is merely following up reports that would have made their way to the media in any case.

It’s in Bacardi’s self-interest to report the problem. If someone drank too much of the doubled content and died, the lawsuit to follow would dwarf the cost of the recall. Not to mention the fact the executives at Bacardi are quite likely decent human beings. They don’t want to hurt anyone. They want to provide a product that people enjoy, and do they ever!

I won’t deny that in some situations a cover-up occurs when some terrible oversight happens. But the agency doesn’t even help in that situation. If Bacardi hadn’t reported the problem to begin with, there is no way the CFIA would have noticed unless people started to talk about the issue. And if that had happened, it would have spread around the internet like wildfire.

Public perception is my problem with this entire incident. The article gives a completely false impression about what happened. It would have been so easy to explain the reality of the event within the article. I will give credit to the CFIA who mention this reality in their alert.
And, for full disclosure, I prefer my Bombay Sapphire Martini made in the following way.

Gin should be stored at room temperature. Pour dry vermouth in shaker with ice. Shake lightly. Pour out vermouth leaving residue behind. Pour in Bombay Sapphire. Shake vigorously until intensely cold. This waters down the gin taking off the edge while infusing the remaining vermouth nicely. Pour in martini glass, add green olive. Serve. Enjoy.

Tom Liberman

State Regulated Barber Poles in New Hampshire

Posted on by

barber polesYep. You read correctly. The New Hampshire Board of Barbering, Cosmetology and Esthetics is on the streets keeping America safe from rogue barber poles. You are only allowed to display the red, white, and blue striped pole if you have a license to be a barber in the state of New Hampshire. Mere cosmetologists, who have their own regulatory rules, do not meet the standard.

This is a microcosm of the government in the United States. We have regulatory boards for virtually every business that exists. In order to practice you must have a state license. The rational given for all of this oversight is that it is needed for your safety. The state must protect you from people who call themselves barbers, but are actually only cosmetologists. It’s the same for massage therapists and your trainer at the gym.

What’s the real reason for all these agencies? For the regulation of barber poles? Money, power, and competition suppression.

The state generates enormous sums of money by charging yearly licensing fees to all these businesses. They use your tax dollars to pay the employees of these agencies. They charge more money forcing people to pass ridiculous tests to prove they can actually perform their jobs.

And then there is the power aspect. There are those charged with enforcing these ludicrous regulations and it tickles their fancy to roam about and issue citations to anyone who dares flaunt the law. They get little badges and ticket books. Their salary is paid for by the very people they harass. I’m sure there are plenty of very reasonable inspectors who don’t enforce the letter of their regulations on anyone who annoys them, but I’m equally certain that many who enjoy harassing citizens. Who among us hasn’t encountered an unreasonable and petty inspector who enjoyed making us squirm?

Finally, there is simply the fact that large and enterprise businesses are much more capable of paying all these fees and abiding by all these regulations. These regulations crush small businesses. They stifle competition for larger companies who have armies of lawyers and deep pocketed lobbyists. These enterprise businesses often end up actually writing the regulations with wording designed specifically to crush competition. They then pay the bills for legislators who in return for this favor, create the laws.

These supposed tests that ensure a practitioner is qualified? I know a little about them as well. I was in the IT industry and I had to pass all sorts of certification tests in order to be qualified to do my job. The way you pass the test is to purchase practice tests. These tests are made by companies who send in fake test takers, who relay the questions to the company, who in turn make a practice test that is pretty much exactly the same as the real test, and then sell it to potential test takers.

Let’s imagine for one crazy moment that we don’t have a Board of Barbering, Cosmetology and Esthetics. Let’s imagine someone becomes a cosmetologist or barber without going through the proper training and certification. Perhaps a barber stabs you in the eye with scissors or scalds your face with a towel that is too hot. Perhaps a cosmetologist uses hair coloring that leaves you bald. These outcomes are terrible to be certain, but do these boards and regulatory committees actually prevent them from happening?

That is the gist of the government’s argument. That by licensing massage therapists and taxi-cab drivers, it is protecting you from incompetence. The problem is that injuries happen despite these supposed safeguards. Just because someone is licensed doesn’t mean they actually know what they are doing. Just because someone is licensed doesn’t mean they can’t flee from a lawsuit.

Another important factor is the Information Age in which we find ourselves. If you are an unskilled barber or cosmetologist it will quickly get out. A few bad reviews and your business can be all but ruined. Let the buyer beware has never been truer than it is today. We have so much information at our fingertips, there really isn’t an excuse for ill-informed purchases.

The bottom line is: Never have we needed oversight less and never have we had it more.

Tom Liberman

Unicorn Against Unicorn and Colorful Lawsuits

Posted on by

unicorn-frappuccinoWhy do people file lawsuits? To win you say? I don’t think that’s always the case, and a recent kerfuffle between a Starbucks, who has a drink called the Unicorn Frappuccino, and a small Brooklyn café selling a drink called the Unicorn Frappe illustrates the point. The End Brooklyn filed a trademark on their drink and has now instigated an infringement case against Starbucks.

The thing that struck me about this lawsuit is what I perceive to be the ends desired. I won’t bore you with a lot of trademark law but basically, The End Brooklyn cannot trademark a drink. They can trademark the name, logo, and slogan associated with said drink. Sadly, the Unicorn part of the name is a pretty generic word. If they had called it the Brooklycorn or something like that, and Starbucks gave theirs the same name, there would be a legal case.

I’m pretty certain The Brooklyn End has no intentions of winning the infringement case. They are well aware Starbucks will be able to continue selling their Unicorn Frappuccino. By now you’re probably beginning to understand where I’m heading with all this. The Brooklyn End gets an enormous amount of publicity for the cost of filing the lawsuit.

The story is making headlines, and arousing passionate comments, in any number of news sites. The cost of this sort of promotion would likely be in the millions of dollars. I, and I’m certain most of the people reading this, had never heard of The Brooklyn End before today. I would most likely have spent the rest of my life in ignorance of this café. Now, I live in St. Louis so there is little chance I’ll visit the establishment in question and spend my hard-earned dollars there. Frankly, I’m a tea drinker anyway. That being said, I’m certain people who do live in that region of the country are now aware of the business.

There is every chance sales of the Unicorn Frappe will rise dramatically because of this lawsuit. It seems obvious to me that was the plan all along. I’m not criticizing The Brooklyn End nor am I being critical of our legal system. What the café is doing is both legal and crafty. Filing the infringement case costs money, there is some chance it will be found frivolous and they might end up paying any fees Starbucks accumulates. I’m certain Starbucks has many competent attorneys at the ready and is not particularly troubled by the case.

It’s a calculated business decision. Is the potential cost of the infringement case more than will be made in increased sales of the drink? If so, it was a mistake. If, on the other hand, sales of the drink are far greater than the cost of the suit then it was a good decision.

This is why we have laws against frivolous suits. The attorney who filed the lawsuit for The Brooklyn End might face serious sanctions if it is determined that it was filed in a frivolous manner.

I eagerly await an outcome to this colorful case.

Tom Liberman

Raven Osborne and the Future of Free Education

Posted on by

raven-osborneI have a strong interest in all things educationally related as I once worked as a Technology Trainer. One of the big topics we see in this field is the so-called Right to an education. A young woman named Raven Osborne, and her accomplishments, give what I believe is a peek into what education will eventually be for everyone.

Osborne was able to take a number of college credit courses through her high school. She also completed courses online. She will now get a college degree in Sociology at the same time she graduates high school. All at no cost.

One of the most interesting things about this is that it harkens to the past. In the old days, we did not have nearly the formalized schooling environment we see today. It was quite possible to obtain a license to practice law without attending law school. You simply educated yourself through available resources and then proved an adequate knowledge of the material. Can you say Abraham Lincoln?

While Lincoln had to read books, we now have the Internet and people can take many classes online. It’s certainly possible to pay for these classes and accumulate college credits but it is becoming increasingly easy to simply watch videos for free. I’ve always had an interest in law and I’ve been watching YouTube videos about Contract Law. I think it’s quite likely if I studied diligently enough, I could learn as much as was necessary to pass the Bar Exam. I could do all this without a single payment of any kind other than internet access.

As more and more educational opportunities became available through the Internet, it seems increasingly likely people will take advantage of them, as did Osborne. We’ll see a whole new generation of doctors, lawyers, massage therapists, and professionals in every field imaginable simply learning their skills through free sources and setting out in the world to make a living.

There is a huge debate among various factions about how education is a right. In a number of countries, a college education is paid for by the state. There are those who want such a system here in the United States. There are many who think this is prohibitively expensive.

Well, I’ve got good news. It’s all going to happen without any government intervention. It’s just going to require the sort of personal initiative that we see from Osborne and we saw from Lincoln. There is coming a time to this world where an education, in any field you might want to pursue, is completely available for all; at the cost of an internet connection. How incredible is that?

Technology and innovation is going to completely solve the problem. It is based on the personal initiative of educators posting their knowledge and colleges making classes available online to view. I challenge you to go, right now, to the internet and search for an educational topic that interests you. Find some videos and learn. Become a Photoshop master. Learn the law. Start on your way toward a career in veterinarian care. It’s mostly out there already and the catalog of available information is growing quickly.

I foresee a time when there are no schools at all. Every person will have the opportunity to get any education they desire for free. Then there are no excuses. If you want to be a lawyer but don’t take advantage of what is available, the onus is upon you.

The future is impossible to predict but it seems quite clear to me that education will be free. That more and more people will have the opportunity to enrich their lives without being limited by financial wherewithal. This means those most motivated and talented will succeed regardless of the circumstances of their birth. One of the great tragedies in this world is when a person with ability and desire is unable to fulfill their potential because of economic or social circumstances.

When the most motivated and the brightest are allowed to succeed, that is good for all of us.

Tom Liberman

Eager Students Need Motivated Teachers

Posted on by

eager-studentsA friend of mine who taught philosophy years ago, recently recounted a conversation he had with a student and it brought to my mind the nature of learning. There are two facets to the teacher student relationship that must be in good working order for learning to occur in a meaningful way. The teacher must want to impart information and the eager students must want to learn. I think this is fairly self-evident but I asked myself, after reading the dialog, how can we improve the current status?

How many of you had instructors who weren’t much interested in teaching? I know I did. The worst teacher I ever encountered likely changed the course of my life. She was a history teacher in high school and her lessons consisted of putting transparencies on the overhead projector and changing them every ten minutes or so while we wrote down their content. She had the entire semester laid out on those transparencies and, from beginning to end, we barely had a discussion in class.

Tests consisted of her writing the questions on the chalkboard and sitting at her desk while we took the test. From this teacher, I learned to hate history.

In college, I was friends with a history major and he convinced me to take a high-level class in European history that had no prerequisites. The professor was engaging, interesting, and taught with enthusiasm. I learned, contrary to what I believed, I love history. I’ve been a history buff ever since. If I had that teacher in high school, I am all but certain I would have followed a very different course in my professional life.

Therefore, we see the importance of a teacher who wishes to teach. If the teacher is willing to engage and challenge the student; the chances of learning increase dramatically.

Now I must also face a harsh reality. I was an indifferent student. I didn’t pay much attention in class and I shirked doing homework or any sort of schoolwork at all. I wanted to play sports and, later, Dungeons and Dragons. That was about it. I had an incredibly engaging chemistry teacher in high school. Perhaps one of the best teachers I’ve had in my life. I learned more about chemistry in that class than any other but I also, most likely, learned a lot less than other students who were eager for the lessons.

I think it was most frequently said about my academic career that I was intelligent but didn’t put forth the effort required. That is more than fair, generous even. I was lazy or perhaps just completely uninterested.

In my later life, I’ve developed a strong desire to learn although, as in my youth, only in topics that interest me. I suspect if I were to go back to what we call traditional school, teachers might well give the same evaluation report.

To me it’s fairly clear that a desire to learn by the student and an eagerness to impart information as a teacher are an indispensable couple in the quest for education.

What is different in this information age is students have a much broader pool of instructors. With YouTube and colleges offering Video on Demand courses, there is an ever-increasing amount of fantastic knowledge out there. I’m certain this is going to grow larger and larger. There will be a time in the not too far distant future when anyone can learn anything while sitting at her or his computer.

Perhaps if I was born fifteen years ago instead of fifty-two, I would have learned my love of history when a lad. Perhaps my life would be very different today, at least professionally. That’s an astonishing thought. Today I spend hours learning about history through various sources, including college courses available to watch on YouTube.

It’s quite possible that any number of young, eager students, might someday watch videos created by my friend and go on to distinguished careers in philosophy. That some young girl or boy might watch one of his lessons on YouTube and eventually come up with a revolutionary idea in the field. In the past, my friend was limited to students in the classroom. That limitation no longer exists.

To sum it all up I say to my friend, get cracking.

Tom Liberman