Category Archives: Law

Robert Gates and the War Powers Resolution

Posted on by

Separation of powersFormer Defense Secretary Robert Gates is out hawking his book Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War and he’s making a few people angry. He’s a man who tells it like he thinks it and there are some candid criticisms (and praise) about the men and women he’s served with; including Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and others.

The man is trying to sell books and make some money, an endeavor I intimately understand. That being said his latest criticisms struck a nerve for me. He accuses Congress of abrogating their responsibilities in regards to the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Gates presided as Secretary of Defense over two wars he now seems to think should not have happened. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars started during the Bush administration. One continues to this day and the other of which we will face consequences from for the foreseeable future.

I’m not going to debate the wars (Or Gates’s various criticisms) but I do want to discuss that idea that Federal and State elected representatives continue to weaken themselves and allow an increased amount of power to flow to the Executive branch. In particular the War Powers Resolution.

As an Independent I hear the complaints of friends who are both Democrats and Republican and it might come as a surprise to my partisan friends (but not fellow independents) that the complaints about concentration of power in the Executive Branch are exactly the same from both and always come from the side not currently occupying the office.

It was argued the War Powers Resolution was designed to make the United States a safer place by allowing the President to make aggressive war, on short notice, without approval from Congress. The reality is that Congress didn’t want to be held responsible for the unpopular decision to send men off to war, off to die. It should be an unpopular decision, it should be a difficult decision to make. We shouldn’t be in the business of making the decision easier and laying the blame on others.

President Nixon vetoed the act but Congress override the veto.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 244 – 170, the Senate by votes of 75 – 20 and 75 -18 (on the veto override).

The breakdown by party for those interested is:

House of Representatives (65 not voting)

Yes: 162 Democrats, 75 Republican

No: 38 Democrats 84 Republicans

Senate (3 not voting)

Yes: 47 Democrats and 27 Republicans

No: 7 Democrats and 12 Republicans.

The override vote was largely the same with a few more Yes votes from both parties.

One must be cautious assigning blame or credit to one party or the other because it’s a fairly common tactic for those that are actually for a bill to vote against it once they know there are enough votes to pass. Because the Democrats were in power they largely made the decision although if enough Republicans had united it likely would have been blocked.

Republicans have had sole control of Congress at times since 1973, and so have Democrats, and yet the War Powers Resolution remains in force. It could have easily been repealed at those times by either party. Easily. It has not because those in charge like the trappings of power, it is those out of power who scream of the abuses only to become silent when they get elected.

Solutions?

I don’t see any because, from what I can tell, the average US citizen is as adverse to accepting responsibility for mistakes as are elected officials, no surprise that.

The next time you get into a debate and your opponent brings up a valid point do a little self-analysis on your response. Did you acknowledge the opposing idea or did you deflect, launch a counter-attack, and blame someone else? Did you even listen to the other side?

I leave you with a single thought. The Founding Fathers created a government with Separation of Powers for a very good reason. If that separation is eroding, what does it mean for our future?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (buy it, read it, write a review, buy it again!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Legalizing Marijuana will increase Crime – According to this article

Posted on by

mexico and marijuanaI didn’t know if I should post this article under stupid and/or misleading headlines or just express my outrage in general. It’s one of the most irrational pieces of nonsense I’ve read in … well … days. (I read a lot of nonsense trying to find something to blog about)

The headline blares: Legalizing Pot Makes Mexican Cartels Even More Dangerous

Oh no! I’m so very, very frightened now. We must not legalize marijuana for it will be very, very dangerous for me!

Here’s the insane rational for this argument. Marijuana, according to the article, generates about $1.425 billion in annual revenue for Mexican drug cartels. Because of this loss of revenue the cartels will have to resort to other criminal activities. Thus there will be an increase in crime!

The article goes on to discuss how the Mexican drug cartels are terrorizing citizens, carrying out large-scale ransom based kidnappings, extorting legitimate businesses, running prostitution rings, smuggling migrants into the United States, exporting harder drugs, smuggling cigarettes, stealing gas, stealing solvents, and not making poopy in the potty! (Okay, I made that last one up).

All this is true. The drug cartels are doing this thanks in part to the $1.425 billion that marijuana smoking Americans send them! The article suggests, in no uncertain terms, that we should continue to send them this bribe so that they don’t increase their criminal activity. Are you kidding me?

I’ve got news for you, they are already engaged in violent crime! Cutting off their funding is a good thing! They aren’t going to stop committing crime because they’ve got too much money. They are constantly looking for new revenue streams. Giving them $1.425 billion less to finance their operations is … wait for it … a good thing!

The article goes on to lament that conservative groups haven’t banded together strongly enough to try to prevent the decriminalization of marijuana. Don’t get me started on the hypocrisy of supposed small government conservatives and the DEA.

This article is fear mongering at a level of ridiculousness that makes me want to laugh and weep at the same moment.

Happily, judging by the outrage in the comments below the article I’m guessing this argument is not swaying many people. So, at least we’ve got that.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

The Terrorist Threat to Freedom

Posted on by
Terrorist Threat

The winter Olympics are coming soon and will be held in the Russian city of Sochi. There are concerns about security at the Olympics which were illustrated by a Chechen terrorist threat against the city of Volgograd twice within twenty-four hours.

These attacks were likely made by Muslims from Chechnya; which has been in a two-decades long war with Russia to become an independent nation.

These types of attacks represent a real threat to our freedom and our way of life. Obviously they did not occur in the United States but we’ve seen similar murderous rampages in this country from both Muslim extremest and domestic terrorists.

After the Sochi attacks the head of state of Russia, Vladimir Putin, made some strong statements about the actions that would be taken by the state. In the comments section below the story I noted that the vast majority of people not only agreed with Putin, that violence should be met with more violence, but they felt that Putin was the sort of leader they would prefer to have in the White House.

A tough-talking leader who promises that all enemies will be destroyed and that the safety of the people will be guaranteed by annihilating said enemies is a natural result of a terrorist threat. People are frightened and want assurances and vengeance. I suggest that this sort of leader is the greatest threat terrorism brings. This sort of leader is a far greater threat to your freedom than are the terrorists.

I do not want a leader of Putin’s ilk to rise in the United States.

Let’s take a little trip in time back to September of 2004. A group of Chechen and Ingush terrorists attacked School Number One in the Russian town of Beslan. The attack ended when Russian forces stormed the school killing the terrorists. 334 hostages, including 186 children, also died.

What’s important to remember is the aftermath of the terrorist threat. Putin ordered sweeping security changes which were approved by the democratically elected government. These changes strongly centralized the government and changed the constitution in a number of ways, all in the name of security, of safety.

In Russia the leeway given to security forces in detaining and spying on citizens was increased. Laws were strengthened so that people could be arrested more easily.

It’s also important to note that almost all of the terrorists in the attack had suffered from Russian security measures in Chechnya and Ingush. They had family members killed or imprisoned, homes destroyed, or property confiscated.

Does any of this sound familiar?

It is only fair to note; such measures do increase security from outside attacks but, as the more recent terror attacks make clear, they do not guarantee safety.

Terrorists attack are a threat to our freedoms because they cause us to be afraid. We make changes to our laws that often represent a far greater threat to our safety than the terror attacks themselves.

People would be wise to remember the lessons of history. Increasing the powers of the police, giving more authority to the central government, and taking strong measures to ensure your security might seem to increase your safety but in reality they leave you more vulnerable.

I’m certainly not saying security measures should be completely abandoned. I’m just suggesting that we carefully implement them so as to safeguard our freedoms and our bodies.

If enough people in the United States want a President like Putin, it will not be long before we have one.

Tom Liberman

In Prison for Marijuana Possession – What should be done?

Posted on by

Marijuna PrisonersThere’s an interesting situation arising in the United States as of Jan 1, 2014. In Colorado there are people selling and smoking marijuana legally; while figuratively looking out the windows at them are prisoners who were convicted of selling or using marijuana.

Colorado is just the first state to legalize marijuana sales with Washington state to follow later this year. I strongly suspect more states will quickly join and eventually the vast majority of states will allow the legal production, distribution, and use of marijuana. Meanwhile, our prisons will still be filled with people sentenced for doing what is now legal.

The law is clear on this subject. These prisoners committed their crimes while it was still illegal. What they did at the time was illegal, they were sentenced fairly, and imprisoned under the system that existed at that time. There will be no automatic commuting of their sentences.

However, in my mind at least, it is an ethically reprehensible position for states to take. If a person was sentenced to prison for an act that is no longer considered a crime I think that a pardon should be extended.

It’s an interesting question and I’d like to hear what my readers think.

[polldaddy poll=7683821]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

The Plus Size Barbie – Truth in Advertising

Posted on by
plus size barbie

Not too long ago my friend shared an article on Facebook about Truth in Advertising. A professional photographer took images of fast food in advertising and compared them to pictures he staged with items recently purchased from the same vendor.

I just read about the controversy over plus-size Barbie dolls which erupted after a plus-size modeling website posted an image of a rather large Barbie. The controversy is that the picture in question has not an average size Barbie but an obese Barbie. This has outraged some people who now demand average Barbie.

After I read the first article posted by my friend, I went to Wikipedia and looked up the legal definition of False Advertising and found it to be slippery. The Barbie situation isn’t false advertising so much as it is giving young women unrealistic body expectations or, in the recent case, telling young women that being morbidly obese is just fine and dandy. Both of which are bad things.

While the two examples I’ve cited are certainly not completely comparable; I do think there is an interesting correlation between them. Both the fast food hamburger and the super-slim Barbie are unrealistic. No one expects to get fast food that looks like the image in the ad and no woman (except her) looks like Barbie.

The question that has been percolating in my mind since that first Facebook share is what should the government’s role in all of this be? I’m convinced that there should be legal ramifications for False Advertising. This is something that should be a crime and is potential dangerous. Medicine sold under false pretenses comes immediately to mind but any safety device that doesn’t work as advertised is clearly a danger.

That being noted, I’m sure that a taco that looks nothing like the picture on the menu isn’t particularly dangerous and the consumer can easily avoid the store after one such experience. The damages amount to a minor financial loss. I don’t think the government needs to be involved here, people can figure it out for themselves without facing serious hazards.

Likewise, I’m not convinced that the government should be in the business of promoting what the ideal woman, or man, should look like.

Yes, that taco is nothing like the picture. Yes, that Barbie does give girls an unrealistic body image. No, it’s not the government’s job to protect us when we are perfectly capable of protecting ourselves.

The Libertarian ideal is often counter-intuitive. If we force people to look at the food and make their own decisions on its appeal, if we educate young people about eating healthy, if we make people aware of realistic body expectations and how to eat and exercise to attain such a look, if we teach people to beware in a dangerous world; then we make the world a safer place, far safer than when we try to legislate such outcomes.

An oversimplification would be the example of keeping a child in a cave to protect them from the world outside. We suppose that we are doing good but we are doing real harm. The child will be overwhelmed once they leave that safe environment.

The government has an important role in society. But it isn’t to protect from all ills that might befall us.

Tom Liberman

Jahi McMath Tonsillectomy – Making Things Worse

Posted on by

jahi mcmathThere’s a tragic story in the news about a young teenager from California who went in for a tonsillectomy to relieve her sleep apnea and died after complications from the surgery. A perusal of the Wikipedia article suggests that about 1 in 15,000 surgeries of this nature result in mortality.

After the surgery she started to bleed and despite transfusions and attempts to stop the bleeding she eventually died. She is currently on life support and receiving intravenous fluids. A pair of doctors not affiliated with the hospital declared Jahi McMath dead and the hospital wants to remove the machinery but the parents went to court to prevent such a move.

They want an independent doctor to examine the girl and a judge agreed. So, for now, McMath will remain on life support. It is almost certain that the independent doctor will confirm that she is dead at which point the family will have to make a decision.

It is not uncommon for hospitals to keep people on life support for a few days to allow the family to accept the tragedy. McMath was declared dead on December 12 and the hospital informed the family this past Thursday, Dec 19, that they wished to remove life support.

The judge in question issued a statement suggesting that the restraining order was applied to give the family time to gain peace of mind and hoped the situation would be resolved by Christmas.

I think everyone would agree the situation is tragic. That everyone would understand the hospital can’t keep McMath on life support indefinitely, particularly as the insurance will not pay for it. I think everyone understands the family’s grief and unwillingness to accept the death.

I’ve never been in this situation but I suspect a number of my readers have had to make such a decision for a family member.

In this case I suspect the family will file a lawsuit and attempt to keep McMath on life support even after the next doctor comes to the same conclusion. I think this would be a terrible mistake. They would then spend the next fifteen years of their life coming to visit the corpse of their daughter and eventually suffer the same grief again when life support was finally removed. See the Terri Schiavo case.

They will end up paying lawyers a lot of money and unless some significant malpractice issue comes up they will bankrupt themselves for nothing.

So, what’s the point of my blog? Be prepared. Make your wishes known. Appoint someone you trust to make the decision for you. Family members who suffer such a loss will not always make good decisions. As bad as a situation might be, poor decisions can make it worse.

As for me? No life support. No heroic measures. No life prolonging measures.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Freedom of Speech – Duck Dynasty and what it Doesn’t Mean

Posted on by

Constitution of United StatesThere’s an interesting story making the rounds about the star of a television show called Duck Dynasty. The story seems to engender a great deal of confusion about the First Amendment to the Constitution and the idea of Freedom of Speech.

The confusion runs so deep that even the governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, apparently has no idea what the Constitution means, and that’s a scary thought. A governor who is totally misguided about the Constitution of the United States!

What happened is that Phil Robertson said some things about homosexuals and blacks that people found offensive. The network where he worked, A&E, suspended him for these remarks. Immediately following the suspension people began to talk about the First Amendment to the Constitution and the concept of Freedom of Speech. They seem to be under the bizarre illusion that you can say anything you want and face absolutely no repercussions. This is in no way, shape, manner, or form the idea of Freedom of Speech.

Depending on what state you work in you can be fired without cause at any time. What do you expect would happen to you if you went up to your boss and told them you paid their spouse five dollars for a sexual liaison down in the alley? Fired! You betcha.

Could you be thrown in jail? No.

That’s the point of the First Amendment and I absolutely shudder in disbelief when someone who is the governor of one of our states apparently doesn’t understand this. When I see comment sections filled by inaccurate statements about the First Amendment it doesn’t bother me too much, it bothers me, just not to the point of writing a blog. A lot of people just aren’t that smart. They have no idea what the Constitution is about nor what Freedom of Speech means.

The pertinent part of the First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.

What part of that could possibly be unclear? There shall be no laws written to prevent people from speaking freely. Generally this means political speech but it can cover other things. Over the years certain types of speech have been ruled not to be subject to the Amendment. Yelling fire in a crowded theater being the primary example often used.

How on earth can anyone think that A&E is passing a law by suspending Robertson?

Robertson has every right to express his opinion. Those who support him have every right to support him as loudly as they want. Those who oppose him have the same right. However, Robertson is not free from repercussions. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Go on, tell your spouse how fat they are, see how much the Constitution protects you from the wrath that follows.

I absolutely support Robertson’s right to say whatever he believes. I support A&E’s right to suspend whoever they want, it’s their network. I applaud Robertson for stating his mind. Now he has to live with the consequences of that decision, good or bad. It has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.

My advice to Governor Jindal and everyone else who is foggy on the First Amendment? Read the Constitution, good stuff there.

Tom Liberman

Why Broad Laws can be Abused – Rebutting my Own Blog!

Posted on by

Car Wash Police HarassmentYesterday I wrote about why broad legislation that leaves interpretation in the hands of law enforcement officers is generally more effective than narrowly written laws that aim to stamp out a particularly misdeed. I saw a story in the news this morning that fully explains why people don’t agree with me.

In this case a city ordinance prevents people from washing their cars in public places. One person called the police to investigate a neighbor washing their car in the driveway of their home. The investigating officer explained to the two men that while the driveway was a private location it could be seen from the street and thus was a violation of the ordinance forbidding washing of cars in public places.

There is clearly a lot more to this story than the one angle. The officer intimates that the men are doing other illegal things and that the police will pay more attention to them in the future and to avoid such scrutiny they’d be wise to skip washing their car. The car was newly purchased and rather beat up indicating several other possibilities. There is clearly a history between the neighbors. It seems to me the officer would rather be just about anywhere else. He was ordered to perform this duty by a superior and was thus obligated to do it. That being said, the reality is that a reasonable ordinance was being abused to harass people.

This is the argument against my broad legislation idea. That if police are allowed to use discretion, they will inevitably abuse that discretion to the detriment of the people they are supposed to protect.

I do not deny for a moment that when we leave interpretation of laws up to individuals we do open ourselves up to such events. That people do not always have the intent of the law in their mind and sometimes use such laws to intimidate and harass people. This argument against my broadly structured laws is not only reasonable but clearly factual.

So, am I recanting my original blog? Nope.

I think the system will always be open to abuse no matter how carefully and narrowly the laws are crafted. Those in power will be tempted to use that power to further their own short-term interests to the detriment of society as a whole. I still think the best long-term solution is to have broad-based laws that address underlying issues rather than narrow laws designed to avoid abuse.

The reality is that until we actually embrace the ideas of Libertarianism within our entire society there will be abuses. There will almost always be Bad Apples. I’m just of the opinion that we need to examine each apple individually and keep the good ones.

In the case in question there were a number of Libertarian based solutions that could have stopped the situation. Whoever at the police station that made the decision to dispatch the officer could have told the person who complained no, that washing a car in a personal driveway was not a violation of the ordinance. The investigating officer could have told his superior that he would not go, if further ordered could have lodged a complaint with the appropriate superior. Finally, the neighbor could have used a little personal judgment and not lodged the complaint at all. Someone should be held responsible for what happened. The neighbor for filing a frivolous complaint, the officer for his role, or the superior for giving the order. I’m not saying fire anyone. I’m saying train them to behave responsibly and reward them when they do.

When other people refuse to act responsibly you don’t have to follow suit. Every time we act responsibly we set an example for others.

Our lives, our decisions, our actions.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Personal Responsibility – The Libertarian Ideal

Posted on by

ResponsibilityEarlier today I posted about a law recently passed here in a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri in which a person caught texting and driving will face maximum penalties of $10,000 in fines and ninety days in prison.

I immediately got into several discussions, both social media and face-to-face, about the merits of my ideas. My theory was that the real problem was Inattentive Driving and that texting while driving was only one example. That by passing a law very specifically aimed at this one kind of Inattentive Driving the municipality was opening itself to some trouble.

The idea is that an officer would be responsible for upholding the law. If a person was texting but the car wasn’t moving; they would be in violation of the law. Also, an officer would be obligated to write a citation for a less-distracted driver texting and not so obligated for a more distracted driver who say, had a wasp fly in the window and land in his lap (I speak from experience).

I argued that a law against Inattentive Drive was broader in reach and would allow law enforcement officers to use their judgment and common sense in handing out citations.

The thrust of most of the arguments against my method were two-fold. One was that of all the events that distract a driver it was texting that was the most likely to cause an accident and therefore the best bang for the buck. The other was that my law against Inattentive Driving left far too much discretion in the hands of the officer of the law. That laws needed to written so that there could be no confusion carrying them out.

In particular the second objection speaks to the very heart of the Libertarian ideal.

It is the bad apple spoils the barrel philosophy, the zero-tolerance philosophy, the mandatory minimum sentencing strategy. The idea is that we cannot trust individuals to make decisions therefore we must pass restrictions narrowly and take power away from the individual. Your daughter was thrown out of school for having a Tylenol? Not my fault, zero-tolerance. You were ticketed for texting while stopped in a traffic jam? Not my fault, just upholding the ordinance. You were given ten years for having a small amount of marijuana? Not my fault, it’s the law.

These kinds of laws are made with the best intentions but largely take us into a Libertarian nightmare. It seems self-evident to me that as we give people less and less responsibility they will be less and less responsible.

I suggest we give people more responsibility and if, and only if, they prove untrustworthy should we take it away. If there’s a bad apple in the barrel, then throw that one apple away. If an officer hands out a ridiculous Inattentive Driving citation using my broad law then bring in the officer for more training. If the officer persists, fire them.

Libertarianism works when people are responsible. People become responsible in one way. By being given responsibility and being held accountable for their actions with that responsibility. If they handle it well they deserve promotions, upwards movement into management where they will train others such responsibility. If they don’t; they will be trained, disciplined, and eventually fired.

The heart of my argument is that by passing Bad Apple laws we are lessening the likelihood for just outcomes by increasing the number of people in the world who do not know how to behave responsibly. I freely admit that passing broad laws opens them to possible misuse. However, I argue that narrow laws designed around the Bad Apple principle eventually result in a far more unjust society.

In the ideal Libertarian world everyone does what is right because doing what is right is in their long-term best interest. You don’t have to tell me that this world will never be. I realize this.

It just seems to me that if we want a more fair world, a more just world, a world wherein people behave responsibly and ethically; the path is not to micromanage people’s lives. It is to give people an understanding of what it takes to succeed and of how ethical behavior benefits all society in the long run.

If you want a strong society then give people responsibility, don’t take it away.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Texting While Driving – the Legal Issue

Posted on by

Inattentive DrivingOne of the municipalities here in my home state of Missouri just passed a law that would incarcerate people for up to 90 days if they are found guilty of texting and driving. Such texting laws have sprung up over the last few years in many states. I find this to be an example of legislation with the right idea but poor implementation. The problems are that the law covers a specific act and also doesn’t take into account various mitigating circumstances.

The entire state of Missouri bans texting while driving for everyone under the age of 21 although not for anyone older.

Here are my issues. The act covers specifically texting while driving but not anything else that could easily be a distraction. Eating, drinking, swatting unruly kids in the back seat, putting on your makeup, or jamming out on air guitar when Don’t Stop Believing plays on the radio (guilty). The other problem that my friend Lisa pointed out with a Facebook post was the idea of texting while the car is stopped in a traffic jam or at a long light.

This leads me into a Libertarian rant on the objective of a law and the actual legislation that is passed in an attempt to bring that law to the people. This is where everything often falls apart.

In this case what we want to stop is people not paying attention while the car is in motion, what is often called Inattentive Driving. Our legislatures, elected by us, often pass laws that do little to stop the underlying problem and end up causing more harm than good. I’m not opposed to laws against texting while driving; I just find it to be an exercise in futility. People will be inattentive in ways not covered by the law. It seems fairly simple to me that if you want to pass a law wherein people can be punished for driving in an inattentive fashion that going after the activity piecemeal is a bad strategy. Why not just make a law against inattentive driving?

An officer sees you driving inattentively for whatever reason and tickets you. You can take the case to court and argue with a judge or pay the fine because you were actually in violation. This is an example of a simple law with each case adjudicated by the individuals involved. Naturally we must take precautions against overly eager police officers but that is the case with the texting law. It’s certainly possible to cite a driver for the violation even if the driver isn’t actually driving at that moment, stopped at a light for example. Or to charge a texting driver while ignoring someone else being even more inattentive for a non-texting reason.

I find that more general laws are often more effective and more fairly applied. Laws that target very specific actions tend to be easily circumvented.

It won’t be long before people are driving fully automated cars and they should certainly be allowed to text, watch TV, take a nap, or just about anything else while the car is in motion.

One of the ways to lead a productive life is to determine the nature of the obstacle that confronts you before beginning to try to find a solution. If you do not understand the problem your attempts at a resolution are often doomed to failure.

In this case, the problem is Inattentive Driving, not Texting. Make a law that addresses the problem.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Was the Biblical Satan a Libertarian?

Posted on by

Ten Commandments StatueI came across an article about how a group of Satanists want to put up a monument outside the Capitol Grounds in Oklahoma City. The Oklahoma legislature placed a Ten Commandments statue on the grounds in 2012 and now the Satanists want equal representation.

This comes as no surprise to me. It’s only natural that when one religious group gets to build a monument on public grounds that everyone else will want to join in on the party. The article did lead me into an investigation of Satanism as a whole and I was particularly struck by the beliefs of what are called Theistic Satanists.

There are other forms of Satanism but Theistic is the commonly associated ideology.

They believe that Satan is an actual entity to be worshiped. This is somewhat in lines with Christianity where Satan is certainly a real figure although to be loathed rather than loved.

A Theistic Satanist believes strongly in the power of self and the pursuit of knowledge. The biblical story of Satan has him exhorting Adam and Eve to eat of the Fruit of Knowledge so that they can fully understand and pursue their lives rather than live sheltered half-lives in the Garden of Eden. Very Libertarian indeed. They do not know evil and therefore cannot truly understand the nature of their lives.

They also tend to think that Satan encourages self-improvement. That Good and Evil are defined as ideas that benefit or harm mankind. This contrasts with the more biblical view in which Good and Evil are defined by submission or rebellion from God’s will. This also is line with ideals promulgated by Ayn Rand who wants us to do our best in everything and that by achieving we make life better for our society and those around us. They argue devotion to God’s will is meaningless to the true definition of Good or Evil. That defining Good as being submissive to God undermines individuality and a person’s best interests.

The Bible often equates evil that happens to people as being inflicted by Satan and Satanists view these as tests which make them stronger. That overcoming adversity is the fire that makes us strong and these challenges are brought on by Satan.

Many Satanists believe in magic and some in animal sacrifice although I see no particular connection with a Libertarian in either regards.

Of course, I think it’s all nonsense. I’m an Atheist. God is not real nor is Satan. Our lives are what we make them. Tests in life come through the natural course of events. Our parents will die, our friends and family will face illness and misfortune. Adversity is the price of life and not brought on by any outside agency.

As to the monument? I suppose if you allow one religion to mount something you’ve got to allow the rest.

I suppose this is what I get for reading so many news stories.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Do You Support Presidential Term Limits?

Posted on by

Term LimitsI read an article just a moment ago that suggested it was time to repeal the 22nd Amendment and remove the two-term limit to the office of the President of the United States. The comments indicated that the vast majority of people not only opposed repealing the amendment but wanted to institute term limits on Congress and the Federal Judiciary.

Besides the 22nd Amendment, which was ratified in 1951, there have never been restrictions in the Constitution of the United States that limit the amount of time a politician or judge can serve.

States have a variety of term limit laws with 36 states having gubernatorial limits while fifteen states limit the amount of time state representatives can serve. Additionally the 22nd Amendment was ratified by 41 states with 2 states rejecting the amendment and a further 5 states not considering it. As a bonus trivia question for my well-educated and thoughtful viewers, why does the total of states not reach 50?

Those who argue for term limits generally suggest that politicians become corrupted upon being repeatedly elected and garner a dangerous amount of power. That they do as they desire without regard to the electorate as would a tyrant.

Those who oppose term limits largely argue that voters are the ultimate factor in how long a president serves and often quote George Washington who said, “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public.”

They also argue that artificial term limits change the way a president governs. That last term office holders have a difficult time building coalitions and accomplishing anything. That last term office holders can effectively do whatever they want without worry of repercussions. That term limited and popular politicians will simply end up with a rotation system where allies are continually elected as proxies. This particular idea reached its highest level of absurdity when Lurleen Wallace was elected governor of Alabama in 1966.

Personally I am for repeal of the 22nd Amendment and the removal of term limits in general. In my opinion term limits are largely designed to correct the problem of elected officials accumulating too much power. That these limits are merely a substitution to our responsibilities as voters in a Representative Republic. That such artificial solutions solve nothing and, in many ways, make the situation worse by giving the illusion of security.

The duty of every voter is to cast their ballot for the most qualified candidate. The candidate that will best serve our nation, our state, and our community. If a politician fails to do so, we have recourse. If we fail to avail ourselves of said recourse then no law can save us.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman

Child Endangerment in Arizona and the Amish

Posted on by

Amish Hershberger Child EndangermentThere are two stories in the news that bring forward difficult questions about what responsibility the state has over children. In one case a couple imprisoned three young girls and in the other parents are refusing medical treatment for their daughter.

In both cases the state stepped into matters and the public reaction is relatively predictable. In the Arizona case almost everyone agrees that the mother and step-father needed to be arrested for keeping the girls locked in the house while in the Amish case the majority seem to think it is the right of the parents to deny potentially life-saving medical care to their daughter.

I’d imagine that almost all of my readers agree with the state interceding in the Arizona case but opinions will be more divided in the Amish case. Both situations involve parents behaving in ways that appear to be at odds with what is in the best interest of the child.

In one situation girls are apparently imprisoned and the other a girl is essentially being allowed to die when the medical community thinks she likely could be saved via chemotherapy.

The Amish case in particular is difficult because Sarah Hershberger might die even with treatment and there is a chance she could live without treatment. There are no guarantees either way.

I suppose Fernando and Sophia Richter might argue that they were protecting the girls from the dangers of the outside world, that they were home-schooling them, that the girls were locked into the house in punishment for particular misdeeds, that as parents they have the right to make these rules and enforce them.

The bigger question, from a Libertarian perspective, becomes: When does the government have the duty to step into a situation and protect children from their parents?

I think we can all agree that parents do no have absolute control over their children. We can also agree that a child does not have absolute control over their own decisions. Sarah doesn’t like chemotherapy but what if she doesn’t like going to bed at 10:00 p.m.? Perhaps a ridiculous comparison but the reality is that we frequently don’t allow children autonomy over their lives.

So, when do parents lose their rights? That’s the question.

What if the Hershberger case the medical community said there was a 99% chance of survival with chemotherapy and a 99% chance of death without? What if the odds were 50/50?

What if Andy Hershberger didn’t believe in antibiotics and Sarah got a cut. It became infected and against doctor’s advice antibiotic were not applied. What is sepsis set in and she died? Would that be endangerment? Should the state step in and apply antibiotics?

I don’t have any answers for you today. I think the courts must make these difficult decisions on a case-by-case basis. These decisions then go into effect. If we don’t like these decisions we can vote out the legislators that appointed the judges and in many cases the judges themselves.

One thing I don’t like is people pretending these are simple decisions. That the line is firmly drawn and that those that disagree are wrong or evil.

These cases involve children who are being abused and potentially being allowed to die unnecessarily. This brings out passionate debate and that’s a good thing. Try not to let your passion become anger and hate.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Is Donning and Doffing clothes for Work part of the Job?

Posted on by

Protective GearThere’s an absolutely fascinating case before the Supreme Court and the oral arguments brought out the best in our nine Justices.

The question before the court is whether employees should be paid for the time it takes to change into and out of clothes required for their jobs. In this case it is steel workers and we’re talking about heavy-duty protective equipment.

The fact that the federal government has gone back and forth on this issue a number of times hasn’t helped solve the problem. Believe it or not, the big question is over the definition of clothes. According to the existing statute things that are clothes don’t count but protective gear does. In other words if you have to put on protective gear to do your job then you should be paid for the time it takes to put it on and take it off.

The company says any wearable item is clothes while the union disagrees.

Justice Kagan suggested that the entire thing was really just a statute interpretation issue that should be left to the agency involved and wondered why the court had to make a ruling at all. Justice Scalia quickly quipped; “Too complicated is why”, generating much laughter. It seems simple but Justice Scalia is correct, it is quite complex. Justice Kagan was right as well, it doesn’t really belong in the courts, but no one else can come up with a satisfactory resolution.

For some jobs it takes half-an-hour or more to suit up and I think most people would agree that you shouldn’t have to arrive at work thirty-minutes early, change clothes, perform your job for eight hours, and then spend thirty more minutes on your own time changing back to your clothes. You would be working for nine hours and being paid for eight.

The other side of the coin is putting on an apron and non-scuff shoes for the grocery store which takes a couple of minutes. Calling the apron and shoes protective gear would mean that every employee at the store gets paid for that time, every day. That adds up. Basically they would clock in before donning the apron and clock out after.

The court appears to be trying to find a long-term solution that answers questions broadly rather than giving a ruling for this single case.

The problem of course is defining protective gear. Technically an apron is protective although not in the same way as safety goggles or a fireproof vest. The employer is always going to call it clothes and the employee or their union protective gear.

The court is going to have to find a litmus test solution. Personally I think it’s a matter of time. If you can put on your work clothes in less than five minutes then I don’t think they really qualify as protective gear although certainly a pair of safety glasses and a fireproof vest can be slipped on in that amount of time.

If it was me, and I’m no lawyer, I’d put some sort of time limit on dressing, say ten minutes. Some average amount of changing time must be calculated for each job. So, you arrive at work, change clothes, and punch in. You then punch out and change back to street clothes. If is determined your job requires fourteen minutes donning/doffing time then four minutes are added to your time card each day you work.

It’s certainly not a perfect solution but it’s a complex problem. And remember, it’s not just me that thinks so!

Do you have a better solution?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Phony Herbal Supplements

Posted on by

Phony Herbal SupplementsThere is an item making the rounds on the major news outlets that probably comes as a surprise to many people but is something about which I’ve been aware for many years. Those herbal supplements you’ve been taking … are not what they purport to be.

Researchers tested products from twelve companies and found only two that were listing correct ingredients while the rest were selling “shoddy” product. These companies were putting in cheap and often toxic ingredients instead of the purported herbs in an attempt to increase their profit margin.

These herbal supplements are part of a $5 billion industry, an unregulated industry. People swear by them with the same fervor they swear that copper bracelets alleviate the pain of their arthritis and Power Bracelets boosting athletic performance.

The Food and Drug Administration estimates that there are about 50,000 “adverse events” a year caused by herbal supplements although most are not reported.

The real reason for my blog post is not to lambaste those who believe herbal supplements are healthy but to address what is certain to become a call for the government to regulate this “out-of-control” industry. The FDA already oversees a great deal but because these herbal supplements don’t fit into either the food or the drug category they have thus far escaped supervision. With this new data there are sure to be calls for regulation.

I have no issue with holding companies to their word. If a supplement company claims their product is Echinacea then it should be so. If it is not there are legal remedies available to consumers. Local, State, and Federal government can and should hand out fines. What I don’t see as being helpful is the government stepping in to tell supplement companies how to make their product.

Anyone who doesn’t realize there is a potential problem with the supplements they purchase simply hasn’t bothered to do the requisite research. Information is available and readily found on the internet.

I’d like to examine what I think would be the result of government regulation as opposed to vigilant consumer action. The supplement companies would spend money on various political campaign via contributions and lobbyist. The laws that eventually came down from Washington would be designed to benefit the largest of these companies while hindering the smallest.

If, on the other hand, consumers paid attention to the supplements they were putting in their body and only purchased from the two companies that actually did what they claimed they were doing, those two companies would thrive while the shoddy operations failed. That’s capitalism in action and that is good for consumers and business owners who operate ethically.

When the government gets involved we largely end up with the illusion of safety where little actually exists. Organic foods are not organic. They meet the government definition of organic but that has become largely meaningless thanks to lobbyists convincing politicians to pervert the laws.

We live in the burgeoning information age and with it comes the ability to change the world for the better. If you are putting supplements into your body and don’t know the readily available information about the reputation of the provider then I don’t have a lot of sympathy for you.

I don’t much like the way factory farms treat chickens and I buy eggs from sources that have “pastured” animals. That’s my decision to make. If enough people make it then the industry changes. Government regulation is unlikely to bring about such a change.

If the supplement article shocks you then you have recourse, your purchasing habits.

To paraphrase a pretty wise fellow; Don’t ask what the government can do for you, ask what you can do for you.

Tom Liberman

I Hate the NFL Blackout Rule – But I hate the FCC More

Posted on by

NFL Blackout RulesI just read an interesting story about how the Federal Communication Commission thinks they need to be involved in deciding when the National Football League broadcasts its games.

The NFL has a series of rules in which if the home team does not sell a certain number of tickets then the game cannot be broadcast in the home team’s market. This blackout includes fans who paid for the NFL Season Package either through their cable provider or internet provider.

I’m of the opinion that the NFL policy is misguided because they should desire to expand their audience, not decrease it. Even when most games were not televised on multiple outlets I think the rule was a mistake. The idea of the blackouts are to promote ticket sales by forcing people to attend the game. In the modern age the NFL is essentially shutting out a large segment of potential viewers when they do this.

The NFL is coming around to my way of thinking and has reduced the sellout rule down to 85% sales of what are called non-premium seats. They also now allow the selling of blocks of tickets at discounted rates to avoid the blackout. These new rules have meant that not a single game in the NFL has been blacked out this season. This is capitalism at work.

So now the government is getting involved. A year ago Senator John McCain of the Grand Canyon state of Arizona originally proposed a bill to force the NFL to televise all games and now the FCC is getting involved. The FCC’s argument is that those who cannot afford tickets should not be punished. What, what, what?

Those who cannot afford tickets don’t attend games, that’s the law of economics. If the NFL wants to prevent people from watching the game on television then that’s their own, misguided, business decision to make.

If a person can’t afford to see a first run movie should the studio be forced to televise it? If I can’t afford to get HBO should the network be forced to show the program over the airwaves? This is government nonsense at its worst.

Don’t mistake me, I think the NFL is better off showcasing its game on as many outlets as possible. I think content providers should release their media as broadly as possible so as to have more people watch it. This builds a loyal fan base who will watch content, buy merchandise, and see advertisements. The only reason I know about Australian Rules Football, Archer, and 20/20 Cricket is because they were released on Hulu and ESPN3.

When content providers practice to limit their audience they hurt only themselves. That being said, it’s not the government’s job to prevent a company from making stupid business decisions. When the AFL pulled their games from ESPN3 they lost me as viewer. Likewise when FX pulled Archer from Hulu. That’s their decision to make.

We Libertarians often get criticized for hating government meanwhile happily enjoying roads, appreciating teachers, police officers, firemen, parks department employees, electricity, plumbing, and many of the other things governments provides.

We don’t hate government, we just want to see it limited to the areas of its purview. When it gets involved in things like this the end result is usually bad for everyone. This NFL Blackout/FCC story isn’t the most egregious of violations but it is typical of an overreaching government that tries to right all wrongs.

Maybe they’ve got better things to do?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Banning Boobies at School

Posted on by

I love boobiesThere was an interesting case a while back that is slowly making its way through the courts and is now one step short of the Supreme Court.

One of the various methods in which people support breast cancer research these days is a bracelet with the words I (heart) Boobies on it. It’s mainly designed for younger girls who wear that sort of thing and the Easton Area school district in the Keystone State of Pennsylvania decided that it was sexual in nature and banned students from wearing the bracelet.

A pair of girls defied the ban on Breast Cancer Awareness day in 2010 and were suspended for their defiance. Multiple courts have ruled that the district did not prove the bracelets were disruptive with the most recent being a federal appeals court. The district voted to continue the case which means it now heads to the Supreme Court.

The reason I find the case interesting is that it is a clash of my Libertarian ideals. On one hand I think the school has every right to have a dress code and enforce it. On the other hand I think individuals have the right to wear what they choose as long as it is not particularly disruptive.

The school board banned the bracelets originally because the term boobies was determined to be lewd and designed around sexual themes. This violated the dress code restricting sexual suggestive language or images. Several other schools have banned the bracelets as well.

So, where does a Libertarian land on this issue?

The bracelets are clearly not sexually suggestive and I reject that argument out of hand. It’s a bit humorous and certainly mentions the word boobies but it just doesn’t rise to the level of being sexual in my opinion. Likewise there seems to be no evidence that the bracelets were causing disruption in the school.

On the other hand, if the school wants to ban, say, black socks, then that’s their right. They pass a rule and any student who violates it should expect the punishment they get. It’s a stupid rule to be certain but the school has the right to make rules about dress codes. This is clear.

In the end I’m going to side with the district although not because I think the bracelets are lewd or disruptive but simply because the district board has the right to create whatever dress code they desire. If the students and parents of that district object they can elect new representation next time around.

That’s the way representative republics work.

I think what would have been best is if the girls followed the rule that year but started a political campaign to remove those who voted for the ban from office. Getting board members elected who see the stupidity of the rule and reverse it. That’s government by the people for the people.

That’s what we want. The courts have their place to be certain but I think every time we resort to them rather than creating a real political solution we get further away from what the Founding Fathers desired.

If you don’t like the decisions your representative makes; be it local, state, or federal, you have the power of the vote. When we hold people responsible for their decisions, not the rhetoric they spew during the election cycle, we make the country a better place.

Not to say that I don’t love boobies, I do.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

A Whiskey Tale – Jack Daniels v. Popcorn Sutton

Posted on by

Whiskey LabelsThere’s a little news story out today that makes me sad for a couple of reasons.

A fellow named Marvin “Popcorn” Sutton was driven to suicide by the government over his illegal activities and now his wife is being sued out of existence by Jack Daniels. It’s a sad story, pull up a chair and see what our country has become.

A fellow by the name of Marvin Sutton brewed his own Tennessee Whiskey for many years. He didn’t bother to get a license for his stills or pay taxes on his sales so he was considered a Moonshiner and Bootlegger. The reason we require a distillery to be licensed is that poorly produced alcohol has the potential to kill and cause serious harm. The reason we require taxes is to fund the government.

Sutton produced his illegal whiskey for many years and became prominent for his videos showing how to make whiskey. He sold to a small but dedicated group of buyers for many years until the federal government gathered enough evidence to try him for his crimes. He was found guilty an sentenced to 18 months in prison. At about that time he was also diagnosed with cancer and rather than serve his time he committed suicide.

I’m not opposed to the government making sure our food supply is safe and I do think they have the right to force licensing on production of things like alcohol. I’m also not opposed to taxes on alcohol. The taxes are justified by the distribution required. The roads necessary for supplies required to manufacture the whiskey and for the finished product to be shipped.

I’m not completely sympathetic to Sutton. He knew the rules and many other liquor companies manage to follow the regulations and turn a nice profit. He broke the law and chose suicide rather than prison. It’s sad, as I said, but he certainly bears the responsibility for the decisions he made.

Now, onto the next part of this story. His liquor had a small but loyal following and some of those backers had some money. They decided to form a company with his widow and began to produce and distribute, legally, Popcorn Sutton’s Tennessee White Whiskey. Initially they used mason jars as a tribute to Sutton but as popularity grew redesigned the bottle and label. That’s where Jack Daniel’s comes in.

The bottles of both products are squarish and have black and white labels. The labels are not similar except color pattern. For Jack Daniel’s this was enough to suspect that consumers would think that Sutton’s whiskey was actually a new brand from Jack Daniel’s. They’ve filed a lawsuit demanding that Sutton destroy all existing bottles and turn over all profits from sales.

This lawsuit will be difficult to fight and will certainly cost Sutton’s company a lot of money. They might not be able to stand-up under the pressure. We’ll see. On the other hand, it might be that the publicity generated from the lawsuit will spur Sutton’s whiskey to new heights. I’m certainly curious about it now and I do purchase whiskey.

Still, I find the entire story somewhat disheartening. A fellow who wanted to make a quality whiskey. A widow who wanted to start a company. The massive forces arrayed against them.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not writing that it’s unfair. The government has the right to regulate. Jack Daniel’s has the right to sue. It’s just a little sad that it’s so much trouble for a fellow to make and sell a nice whiskey.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length novel)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (Out very, very soon!)

Douglas Gansler and the Teen Party

Posted on by

Douglas GanslerThere’s a story just now hitting the mainstream news and it falls right into my wheelhouse.

The attorney general of the Old Line state of Maryland, Douglas Gansler, had his picture taken at a house-party at which a number of underage teenagers were drinking alcohol. Gansler is running for governor in Maryland and his political opponents are using this story against him. The event happened back in June during graduation season but, because of his political ambitions, is getting airplay now.

Let’s first get some background. Parents of the teenagers in question rented the house in Delaware and acted as chaperons during what is commonly called “Senior Week”. The idea being that the seniors are going to be out celebrating their graduation from high school and by providing a controlled environment the parents hope to keep the seniors from drinking and driving and other excesses.

Gansler knew that his son was at the party and entered the house for a short time to talk to him. He found his son, spoke with him briefly, and then left.

Gansler’s political opponents and the moral police are upset because he was clearly aware of underage drinking and did nothing to stop it. He is an official representative of the state of Maryland and as the attorney general his job involves prosecuting criminal activity. Gansler has also publicly campaigned against  underage drinking.

Gansler says that he has no moral authority to tell other people’s children whether to drink or not and has no legal authority to do so in the state of Delaware.

In my opinion what Gansler did was absolutely reasonable, prudent, and correct. Even if the party was in Maryland and even if the party wasn’t condoned by parents of the kids; it’s not his job to arrest people. I would argue that under those circumstances if he saw drunken people getting into cars he should have reported it to the police.

It is illegal in Delaware for anyone under the age of 21 to drink alcohol but it’s also illegal to go faster than the speed limit. It’s illegal to cross against the light. It’s illegal to do a lot of things we see people doing all the time. It’s not the job of the Attorney General to arrest people. That’s for the police.

Getting beyond legal niceties, the culture of character assassination that pervades our political system is extremely damaging. As soon as we note that someone has done something moderately questionable the attacks dogs are released.

We have become a nation of sanctimonious, self-righteous, egotists. When it comes to a person from the party we support we put up with anything but the same behavior from someone of the other party makes them a monstrous human being.

Most kids are going to drink when they graduate from high school. To pretend otherwise is to be a complete fool. The parents who provided a safe environment for it to happen are to be applauded. If another parent rushed to the house and started scolding someone else’s kids they’d rightly be told to mind their own damn business.

When we lambaste Gansler we are saying loudly and clearly that everyone should tell everyone else how to lead their lives. That if you don’t tell other people how to lead their lives you’re derelict in your responsibilities as an adult.

If Gansler saw a drunken teen getting into a car to drive it away I do think there is a responsibility to attempt to stop it. In this case it’s just not his business.

We cannot expect people to be responsible if we never give them responsibility. These teens are soon to be adults. They need to learn how to drink responsibly. To behave responsibly.

Let’s say this story becomes a huge issue and Gansler loses the election because of it. What message have we delivered? That parents should intervene at any party at which they see underage drinking? Ha. Never going to happen.

What’s we’ve accomplished is to make sure anyone thinking about political office never goes to a party attended by their child in which there might be underage drinking. Gansler went to the party with concerns about his son. He checked in and left. Good job, dad. Don’t let the witch-hunters shame you into being a bad father, afraid to check in on your son because it will hurt your political ambitions.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length novel)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (Out very, very soon!)

 

Arresting Parents for the Crimes of Children

Posted on by

Bad ParentsThe recent case in which Rebecca Ann Sedwick killed herself after months of relentless bullying, mainly through social media and email, has once again brought forward the idea that parents should be punished for the illegal activity of their children.

The idea has a large emotional appeal because it is easy to blame poor parenting for bad children. Not only is it easy to associate the two but they are, in fact, often causally related. Children raised poorly by their parents often end up behaving in criminal ways.

The question that I intend to explore today is if such punishment is merited. Many experts argue that punishing the parent will do nothing to prevent such bullying but that’s not my focus here. I want to determine if parents should be held responsible for their children’s behavior.

There is some legal precedent for the idea. A number of states place various penalties on parents when their children are found guilty of crimes.

The idea is that parents would fear punishment based on the behavior of their children and thus take steps to curb said actions. If a certain number of parents are arrested for the crimes of their children, other parents will become more involved parents. That, out of fear, they will become better parents.

I’m convinced this argument is, at best, largely false. There are good parents and bad parents. Good parents will look at laws of this nature and possibly spend more time trying to be good parents; but the reality is that they are already good parents and their children are not likely to engage in this sort of bullying. Bad parents are living under the illusion that they are good parents or they simply don’t care. Therefore they will make no effort to change.

However, my main argument against this kind of law is that it punishes someone for a crime they didn’t commit. Yes, they were awful, absent parents but that’s not a crime. Their children committed real crimes and should be punished for doing so.

I think an interesting analogy would be punishing a dog owner for allowing their pet to roam free and defecate on lawns. The dog cannot comprehend the law and simply goes to the bathroom without cleaning up. The owner understands the law and allowed the dog, who doesn’t know any better, to violate the law.

Another example that comes to mind is leaving loaded firearms in places where children have access to them. A child shoots another child with said firearm. Parents have been convicted for crimes in these cases. I’m not opposed to convicting the parent of negligence in leaving a dangerous weapon so readily available but that is the crime of the parent. Possibly even convict them of negligent homicide. But the reality is the child pulled the trigger and should face whatever punishment law-enforcement and our judicial system deems appropriate.

I do not think a child is an animal. A child knows better; the sooner they learn there are consequences to their actions the better.

What message are we sending a child by punishing someone else for their crimes? It doesn’t take much of a leap of logic to imagine an angry child committing a crime in order to get their parent punished.

Those girls that bullied their classmate knew what they were doing was cruel and wrong. They should be punished. They should face the full force of the legal system. I have no problem with laws about making threatening statements, about libel, about slander. If the girls in this case have broken those laws then let them face punishment. They are not pets, they are people. Perhaps not adults but old enough to know right from wrong.

Laws must be enforced with blind justice.

In summation; people should be held responsible for their actions and their actions alone.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length novel)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (Out very soon!)