Category Archives: Law

Pujols Files Defamation Suit Against Clark

Posted on by

Clark PujolsI wrote a blog a while back about how a former local radio host in St. Louis, Jack Clark, claimed that he knew “for a fact” that Albert Pujols used steroids.

Pujols vowed to file suit against Clark although most people felt this was merely bravado because proving that Clark knowingly lied with malice is difficult. That Pujols would face something called discovery in which the defense gets to interview many people associated with Pujols about his past.

Well, Pujols went ahead and filed anyway.

I find this interesting because Pujols is opening himself up to a lot of scrutiny. If in the discovery process it is found that he did use steroids he will certainly lose the suit and a great deal of respect in the baseball community. It was clearly in Pujols’ best interest to let the matter simply fade away. This is the strategy that almost ever other athlete accused of PED use has done in the past with the notable exception of Lance Armstrong.

Armstrong strongly denounced those who accused him, filed suits, won money, destroyed lives, but eventually admitted that he was using PEDs all that time. This effectively ended his career and has him embroiled in multiple lawsuits to this day.

Pujols faces the same situation. If it turns out he did use PEDs his long-term contract with the Los Angeles Angels might well be voided. His future reputation in baseball is on the line. This is the reason that Ryan Braun never filed suit against his accusers. He was guilty and knew filing suit would open him to tremendous danger.

On the other hand I empathize with Pujols if he has been falsely accused. I’m glad that he filed suit because it’s wrong when someone lies about someone else in order to gain publicity. We see it all the time in the news about politicians and celebrities. Lies are told with reckless abandon because the US court system is set up to protect the defendant and proving such cases is extremely difficult.

In this case I do think the fact that Clark said that he “knew for a fact” that Pujols was using PEDs is clearly a lie. Therefore I think Pujols has a chance to win the case.

Why is it a lie? Let’s imagine that Clark actually did have a conversation with Pujols trainer some thirteen years ago and that trainer did tell him Pujols was using steroids. This still doesn’t rise to the level of “know for a fact.” It is hearsay at best. Clark has no first hand knowledge of PED use.

In the radio show where Clark made these accusations his co-host agreed that he thought Pujols was using PEDs but carefully avoided such language. The co-host is a lawyer and long-time radio broadcaster who is well aware of the laws regarding defamation and slander.

I’ll be an interested follower as this case makes its way through the system.

I know for whom I’ll be rooting . I hope Pujols is able to prove his case and Clark is ordered to pay a fine, which Pujols says will go to charity, and apologize.

If evidence arises that Pujols actually did use PEDs, I’ll be saddened although not particularly surprised.

Stay tuned!

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

$3 Million in a bra?

Posted on by

Money In Bra

There’s a rather interesting story in the news about a school employee who stole some money over the course of seven years. Over that period she managed to steal an estimated $3 million by putting money in her bra as she was leaving school grounds.

The money came from students who paid cash for lunches over the course of the day. The employee was in charge of accounting for this money.

What I find interesting is that my first reaction, and that of most the people making comments, was that this was a huge amount of money to steal in seven years. That she must have had some specially made bra into which to stuff the huge wads of bills. Is that what you thought?

I heard the story as I was pulling up to pick up my dinner from a local grocery store and sat in my car for a few minutes before it occurred to me that maybe it wasn’t all that much to money to stuff into a bra after all. My math skills being deficient I waited until I returned home to perform the calculations.

The first order of business was to determine how many days are in a school year. It turns out there are about 180 on average so I went with that figure. So, let’s work it out.

The number of years = 7

The number of days = 180

The total amount = 3,000,000

The unknown amount is how much was stolen each day (x).

The equation: 7 * 180 * x = 3,000,000

7 * 180 = 1,260.

So now we have 1260 * x  = 3,000,000. We move the 1260 to the other side of the equation and end up with this.

x = 3,000,000/1260.

The result is $2,380 per day.

Not so bad and it’s probably a good thing to get my algebra brain working again after all these years.

Now, let’s say it’s mostly $20 dollar bills, so that’s fairly simple. 2,380/20 = 119 bills stuffed into her bra on a daily average.

Our math isn’t done yet because I need to know how thick is a pile of 119 bills. Yes, I have a sickness, I admit it.

The US Treasury says that a dollar bill is .0043 inches tall.

Now we take 119 * .0043 and end up with .511 inches. Half an inch of bills every school day for seven years and we’ve got our answer! It can be done and without that much trouble.

Isn’t math great!

So, I was wrong and so were most of the people who made comments on the story.

Now, tell me the truth, when you first heard the story did you think, like me, it sounded impossible?

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

China Dumped Honey and Tariffs created Crime

Posted on by

HoneyI just read a fascinating story on Bloomberg Business Week about massive food fraud involving imported honey.

The entire episode could have been avoided if only we lived in a capitalistic system instead of a crony capitalistic system. It’s not that complicated but let me explain what happened and then I’ll talk about how it could have been avoided.

Cheap Honey

Not long ago I wrote about how a monopoly itself is not criminal but can lead to anti-trust behavior that is illegal.

In this case we have an entire country that engaged in the anti-competitive practice of dumping. Prior to 2001, China dumped huge amounts of cheap honey on the United States in an attempt to squeeze out competition. This included American beekeepers. They complained. These complaints proved to be accurate but, because China is a foreign country, it was impossible to arrest anyone.

Tariffs on Honey from China

Instead large tariffs were placed on Chinese honey driving up the cost of Chinese honey to the point where it cannot be profitable for an American company to purchase honey from China. This tariff is still in place and almost no honey brought into the United States, the largest honey importer in the world, is from China. At least it’s not supposed to be.

This is important. We, the American consumers, could be purchasing reasonably priced honey from China. This in turn would drive down the cost of honey. However, tariffs prevent it. The loser in this is the free market and the consumer. Not that China shouldn’t have been punished for their Dumping tactics but I’ll get to that.

In the meantime, China was still making huge amounts of honey but they couldn’t sell it to the world’s biggest honey importer because of the tariffs. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what happened next.

Illegal Honey Arrives

A company in Germany, along with allies around the world, managed to route Chinese honey into other nations, repackage it, and sell it in the United States at a cheaper price. Many American companies were complicit in that they purchased the cheap honey knowing full well it was not from the purported point of origin.

However, because this honey was not properly labeled, much was getting through that didn’t meet Food and Drug Administration safety standards. In particular the Chinese use a pesticide called chloramphenicol which is banned in U.S. Food.

In addition, much Chinese honey is substandard but was being adulterated to pass as a higher quality and thus getting a better price. Fraud.

Eventually the government caught onto the scheme and arrested a few of the Americans involved, penalized the American companies, and put out arrest warrants on foreign nationals who will likely never be prosecuted.

What Might have been Done

Now, here’s the issue. If the governments of the United States and China had agreed to some large fine on honey exporters because of the dumping then China would have continued to sell honey in the U.S. We would not have gotten contaminated honey, we would not have gotten adulterated honey. China would have sold its low quality honey at a low price, honey from China would have been tested regularly for chloramphenicol.

However, the honey producers in the United States saw an opportunity to put competition out of business. So a massive tariff was instituted by well-bribed politicians that potentially caused real damage to American’s health and certainly has us paying a higher price for honey.

Don’t mistake this post as an excuse for China to engage in Dumping. They should have paid a massive penalty used to reimburse U.S. honey producers for lost sales during the dumping. But, after that, sales should have resumed as usual.

We live in a massively complex global economy and I absolutely think it is the government’s job to protect American businesses from foreign nations engaging in anti-trust practices. On a fair playing field I think our industry will win many of the battles.

This fair playing field comes with a price though. If another nation provides a product in a way that doesn’t violate anti-trust laws, they might well put American companies out of business.

Right now the playing field is largely unfair. Nations like China have, until recently, had extremely cheap labor which makes manufacturing a less expensive proposition. As these Third World nations begin to prosper they will eventually lose this edge. Manufacturing will return to the U.S. It is already returning.

Conclusion

The way to level the playing field is complex to say the least. Fines and tariffs are weapons in our arsenal. I’m not categorically opposed to either one.

The long-term goal is to have a prosperous, developed world where equal competition brings out the best in everyone.

I think in this case the attempt to level the field actually tilted the field in one direction. Just as the Chinese honey dumping scheme attempted to tilt it in the other. The result was that you and your family members probably ate adulterated honey.

Tom Liberman

JP Morgan – Trying to Make Sense of Nonsense

Posted on by

JP Morgan ChaseJP Morgan Chase and Company is an international banking and financial service holding company. Employees of the company engaged in a series of trades in April and May of 2012 that generated about $6 billion in losses. By the company I mean investors who entrusted their hard-earned savings with JP Morgan Chase.

Now, a year and a half later the company has agreed to pay a fine of $920 million to various government regulatory commissions in the United States and England.

What’s it all about? I’m sure I don’t understand it completely, or even mostly, but I’ll do my best to explain what I do understand and my problem with the fine. Yep, I think the fine was unjustified.

After the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 the governments of England and the United States decided that a big part of the problem was banks behaving in dangerous ways. When banks take on very risky propositions they can lose the money of all their investors, they cost investors their life savings, their homes. They do damage to the economies of their countries which hurts people who had no investment with the banks. Your retirement money was lost even though you did nothing wrong. Too big to fail. Bailout, TARP, trillions of your tax-dollars spent to keep these institution afloat <—– (seriously, follow that link and read).

The governments of the United States and Great Britain passed rules about risky behavior. JP Morgan covered up violations of these rules and even went as far provide false information to the government about the trades in April and May of 2012.

With all this you might wonder why I think the fine unjustified. If a bank wants to make dangerous investments, that’s their business. If they lose $6 billion dollars that means other investors gained $6 billion dollars. Why should the government be involved unless the trades were criminal in nature?

Oh, yes, some of the trades were criminal in nature. Many of the trades were made simply to generate revenue for the people who worked for JP Morgan. I say arrest them. There are laws about larceny, let’s enforce them. The same during the original financial crisis with what were predatory loans. Loans designed to deceive the person signing the papers by increasing interest rates immediately after the purchase. Arrest the lawyers who wrote the language into the loans. Arrest the bankers who talked people into taking the loans. Fraud is a crime.

Arrest the real estate agent who bribed the home inspector to give an inflated price on the house. Arrest the home inspector. These are crimes and this is where the government should be involved.

What happens instead is regulations that do little good in the long-run while the actual criminals walk off with the money. Do we think such criminals will think twice before stealing again? That others won’t be attracted to the easy money? My easy money? Your easy money?

Do you think average home inspectors would continue to give out false pricing guidelines after a few hundred were sentenced to hard time in prison? The average real estate broker? Your average loan agent? Would a lawyer write deceptive language into a contract if he or she faced ten years in a federal penitentiary.

If you write a contract designed to deceive … jail. If we did that how long do you think before your phone bill became less complex?

The reason we don’t is because the phone companies, banks, and other enterprise businesses paid for your representative’s campaign, vacation, gave family members jobs, and much more. It’s simple bribery and that’s a crime also. Every single elected official in our government is guilty of taking bribes, every one.

Instead of arresting people the government and industry just play a shell-game with your money, with my money.

If you run a bank into the ground, tough luck. The bank closes and another, better run, one gets bigger with all that money. In the end this helps average people because even if your bank fails, another, better bank picks up the loan.

That will change the way financial institutions are run. This $920 million fine isn’t what forces a change.

The $6 billion JP Chase lost? That forced them to reevaluate the way they do business. They fired the people involved, the government is building cases against some of them. An excellent result. No fine necessary, in fact, the fine really comes out of the pocket of investors, not criminals.

I’m out-of-order? You’re out-of-order! The whole system is out-of-order!

Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eNovel)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

 

Rand Paul and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Posted on by

Congressman Rand PaulThere was an article from capitol hill today about a topic I’ve talked about before, mandatory minimum sentencing. The idea is that power is taken away from a judge in the sentencing phase a criminal case.

I think mandatory minimum sentencing is wrong although for somewhat different reasons than Congressman Rand Paul, who is championing their elimination or at least modification.

I’m pleased that Paul returning to his Libertarian roots. Would that all politicians would take stances on political and philosophical beliefs rather than on what they think will get them elected. Some argue that Paul is merely courting minority votes and there might be truth to that. However, the underlying focus is on being a true Libertarian and how mandatory minimum sentencing goes against this philosophy.

Why is mandatory minimum sentencing against Libertarian philosophy?

Let’s first look at how the judicial system works. When a person is accused of a crime and, if they do not plea-bargain, the case goes to trail. The jury is tasked with simply determining if the person is guilty or not. This is why we see all those televisions shows where the judge doesn’t allow previous acts to be brought up during the case. It doesn’t matter to the jury if the person being accused committed the exact same crime three times before. The jury must only determine this case.

If found guilty the judge determines what the sentence shall be. This is where the problem arises.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines were instituted in 1984 to address apparent gaps in punishment.  Judges who gave severe penalties compared with judges who gave apparently small penalties for similar crimes. It was largely done as part of the utter failure we call the War on Drugs.

The guidelines themselves are broken down into 43 offense levels, six criminal history categories and four zones of time relating to incarceration. There are also a litany of causes which can reduce or increase the sentencing time.

These were all designed to ensure that equal punishment was dealt out by judges across the nation. Rand’s argument is that they are not working. That black people are far more likely to be sentenced harshly for the same crime as a white person. He argues that the guidelines have failed in their task. Statistics back him up.

I argue that there very goal itself is wrong. It is up to each judge to determine the penalty. If the people of a state do not like the decisions the judge makes, it is their job to replace the judge. This is our judicial system.

Who better than a judge, who has heard all the evidence both legally admissible and not, to determine the appropriate sentence? If a judge is giving harsh penalties to one ethnic group there are means to address the problem. The voting booth and appeals.

I don’t suggest that there aren’t poor judges out there who are racist and unfair; I just suggest that the guidelines have not alleviated the problem and additionally have caused people to serve inordinately long sentences for relatively minor crimes. Particularly for drug crimes where the mandatory sentencing is extremely harsh.

Don’t mistake my intent here. I don’t rail against mandatory sentencing because it leads to unfair penalties. I don’t rail against mandatory sentencing because it affects one race more than another. I argue against them because they are a typical extension of federal and state power into areas in which they have no business.

Bad judges hand out unfair sentences and mandatory sentencing guidelines haven’t solved the problem, they’ve actually made it worse. Not a surprise.

How do we ensure that judges pass out fair sentences? Get information to the voters. We live in the booming information age. I should be able to easily find all sentences handed out by a judge and base my vote accordingly.

How do we ensure that people do not get overlong sentences for relatively minor crimes? The appeals process will be unchained when minimum sentencing guidelines go away. An appeals court can decided a sentence was unfair. It’s not perfect for the person so sentenced but it is our system. With federal minimum guidelines as they currently stand, appeals are doomed to fail.

People will argue that I’m living in an idealistic fantasy world and I hear you. What I’m proposing isn’t an easy solution but I think it’s the best solution.

We tried to address a problem with government intervention to make things fair. It’s not working.

As is often the case with government intervention someone sees a problem and thinks the government can easily come in and redress the grievance. Issues like this are almost always complex in nature and not easily solved. So called simple government solutions generally exacerbate the problem.

Sentencing should be up to the judges who hear the cases. Judges should be voted on by voters. Appeals should be processed by appellate courts. There is a system and, although not perfect, largely works.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a 300+ page eBook)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

 

 

When is a Season not a Season – Apple Season Pass Lawsuit

Posted on by

Breaking BadThere’s an interesting case making its way through the court system right now in regards to iTunes’ download policy on a television show.

Basically a popular television show, Breaking Bad, broke their fifth and final season into two groups of episodes. The first eight episodes were released in July of 2012 while the second half of eight episodes was released in the summer of 2013. When people view television shows via download with iTunes and other services like Netflix they can either pay per episode or purchase season passes. Therein lies the crux of the issue.

Does the Season Pass cover the entire season as defined by the content maker or by the date it is released? Is a season that is broken into two parts, two seasons? That’s what Apple thinks and they refused to honor the original Season Pass and viewers had to purchase a second Season Pass for $22.99 or individual episodes.

The first time I remember a season being broken up like this was when the Sopranos broke season six into two parts. The first twelve stared in the spring of 2006 and the last nine in the spring of 2007. I don’t know what the policy of iTunes or other providers was at that time. There were probably incidents before that, it’s just the first I remember.

I think it’s an interesting question from a legal perspective. Who makes the decision on what defines a season? The content creator or the content provider? Both entities charge their audience money. Apple has to pay AMC money in order to provide Breaking Bad episodes on their iTunes network. Meanwhile people must then pay Apple for the right to download the episodes. The two transactions are separate entities.

The issue comes because of the “Season Pass” payment. If it was called a “Contiguous String of Episodes Pass” there might not be as much confusion although certainly the name does not roll as easily off the tongue.

Personally I think Apple has every right to implement whatever pricing plan they want. They could charge by episode groups. Discount for groups of ten. It’s their decision to make.

On the other hand I think that the consumer has every right to expect that something called a Season Pass would, in fact, count for the entire season as defined by the content creator.

So, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Apple chose to name their product “Season Pass” and this is clearly misleading to consumers. Apple has every right to charge for the two sets of episodes separately and consumers have a real complaint about being misled. Where does that leave us?

I think Apple would be wise to extend the Season Pass holders the rights to all the new episodes and refund any money paid out. Then they should revamp their naming scheme. If this case goes to court they will generate a lot of bad publicity at a time when they don’t need it. Sticking to their argument will garner them millions in revenue but I’m not sure it’s worth the price. An accountant might better be able to make that decision.

In my opinion the problem stems completely from lack of forethought. AMC announced the dual season long ago and Apple should have done a much better job of explaining their “Season Pass” policy. This lack of thinking ahead brought on problems that could have easily been avoided.

That’s common in life. It’s good to plan ahead, to anticipate problems before they occur. Particular when millions of dollars are at stake.

What do you think? Apple refund? Whining consumers?

Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eNovel)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Kicked out of Universal Studios for T-Shirt – Rightly so!

Posted on by

Offensive T-shirtThere is another one of those offensive t-shirt stories in the news today and this time I’m with the kickers out and not with the t-shirt wearer. Once we get past the attention grabbing headlines and read the whole story we start to hear both sides of the issue.

What was the offensive slogan? Police: Street Crime Unit

There might be more to this than I’m reading into it and if future revelations prove my original thoughts to be wrong I’ll be happy to rethink my position, as I’ve done before.

Essentially a family was in the Universal Studios theme park in Orlando, Florida and security asked them to leave because of the offending t-shirt. The story goes to great lengths to portray the family as the victims starting with the lead paragraph in which it is declared they were at the park for the sixteenth birthday party of the family daughter.

The family claims they asked to see the policy that referenced the shirt and were refused. They also claim they offered to purchase a different shirt at the nearby clothing store but were not allowed to do so. They were “terrified” at the threat of being arrested by security.

First off, it’s a good policy that Universal has. People who are not official security officers should not be wearing clothes that indicate they are such. In this case the man is not even a police officer; he was supposedly given the shirt by his brother. It’s incredible stupid and potentially dangerous to wear such a shirt at a public event at which you are not a security officer, even if you are a police officer in your day job!

A Universal spokesperson is quoted, near the end of the story, as saying that it is their practice to clearly explain policy decisions with the public. The spokesman welcomed a discussion with the family over events.

In other words, they’ve got multiple witnesses as to what occurred and likely some video footage as well.

In the meantime the family is squawking to every news outlet they can find. The park was kind enough to refund them the money they spent to see a show which they were prevented from attending.

If you haven’t guessed, I’m on the side of Universal in this one. Mistakes can happen but reasonable people generally find reasonable solutions. It almost always takes at least one belligerent party to cause events to spiral out of control. If I had my guess I’m pretty sure I know who was reasonable and who was not in this situation.

I think a casual look at my blog posts will show that I’m not always on the side of security officers and government agencies. There are situations where police officers act like bullies, where security far overstep their bounds (one of my friends was just involved in such an incident). However, when in doubt I generally side with security officials. In this case I’m not even in doubt. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think so.

Good on you, Universal. Maybe I’ll take my next vacation at your park, I like the way you do business.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 and worth all 299 pennies!)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

An Athlete Accused – Keith Bulluck

Posted on by

Keith BullockThere’s a breaking story in the news today about an athlete accused of robbery. What I want to talk about is not the accusation or the athlete but the assumption of guilt that seems to come along with any accusation.

Apparently Keith Bulluck, a former running back with the Tennessee Titans, was out in the early hours of the morning and got into an altercation with a cab driver.

Cab Driver’s Story

The cab driver claimed Bullock robbed him of $100. He called the police, led them to wear Bullock was still with friends, and identified him as the thief. Bullock was arrested and posted bond.

Bullock’s Story

Bullock claims he paid for a ride but the driver refused to give services and Bullock took the money back.

What I want to discuss is the tone of the comments section. I consider myself a veteran of comment sections and I think I’m pretty good at spotting trolls. These are comments designed to inflame passionate response. There were a number of these that were blatantly racist but they are not my focus today.

There were also a lot of comments by seemingly rational people talking about another broke athlete. Another thug athlete. The word “thug” is essentially code for criminal black person. Those people assumed him guilty and said so in unabashed terms. While there was a racial element to some of those accusations I wouldn’t say they were predominant. The racial comments were largely trolls.

There were an equal number of comments defending Bullock, primarily made by people from Tennessee where he played his pro career and New York; he played college ball at Syracuse. Most of them were very skeptical of the accusations because of Bullock’s history as a stand-up guy.

What I found most interesting was not necessarily that there were those who immediately attacked Bullock and those that defended him, but the clear delineation of the comments. Those who had bad things to say almost universally assumed guilt. Those who had good things to say suggested waiting until the story was more fully revealed. They expressed skepticism and wanted to know more.

That’s what I found interesting. Those calling for immediate justice were largely uninterested in further facts. Those skeptical of the event wanted more information before they were willing to pass judgment.

I find this desire for more information, this unwillingness to make a final statement, a sign of intelligence. That people who are smart tend to wait before coming to a conclusion. That people who are not smart immediately know they are right and say so without hesitation.

My friend Eric, a very intelligent fellow, once described it as a curious mind. This desire for facts, for more information.

My point today is that we often give credence to those who say things with absolute certainty. Those who yell out their opinions both loudly and repeatedly. I would suggest we listen to those who are less certain. Those willing to withhold judgment. Those seeking more facts, those who examine the other side of the story with an open mind. We might find our world becomes a better place.

Oh, by the way, it turns out the cab driver has made such an accusation before. Has been accused of running a little scam where he takes money from prospective fares and refuses to drive them places claiming he never took any money.

I’m willing to wait until the police finish their investigation to make a final judgment. How about you?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99, full eBook provided upon payment)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Tesla Banned – Attack on the Free Market from … Texas

Posted on by

TeslaThe state of Texas has a law that allows only franchised dealers to sell automobiles. The idea is that only an authorized franchise store of Ford, or Chevy, or Toyota is allowed to sell cars.

The Texas Automobile Dealers Association convinced the legislature to ban the sale of Tesla cars because the company sells directly to buyers instead of through a licensed franchise.

I’ll let TADA president Bill Wolters explain why in his own words. If Tesla were allowed to sell cars without a franchise, “… it allows every other manufacturer to come in and do what Tesla is going to — compete with our family owned businesses.”

He goes on to say this would hurt consumers because franchise dealers compete with each other to keep prices down and they serve customers in rural communities.

So, competition is good, just not competition from anyone who isn’t from Texas? Anyone who doesn’t want to pay franchise fees? Someone who simply want to sell their product to people who want to buy their product? How dare they? Do they think they’re capitalists or something?

I’ve got news for consumers. Competition is good for everyone. This law is protectionism at the expense of consumers.

The success of Texas in banning sales of Tesla’s is spreading. Other auto dealers are gearing up the legislatures in their states to do the same thing.

I’m no giant fan of the Tesla. It’s got some issue but if the people in Texas want to buy the thing, the government should not stand in their way. Government has specific and useful functions and one of them is not pandering towards one business over another. If the Tesla is to fail, then let it fail on its own shortcomings.

I write post after post after post about this subject. How business owners bribe legislatures into passing laws to destroy competition.

What really angers me about this particular brand of crony capitalism is the nasty liberal slant. We’re doing it to help the consumers. That’s the song and dance of the liberals. Trust us, if this nasty businessman gets his way you’ll end up being the one hurt. I’m used to such nonsense from liberals but I suppose I should have grown accustomed to hearing it from republicans by now. They don’t believe in free enterprise and capitalism any more than a liberal democrat, if they ever did.

The government has a role in our nation. If the Tesla was poorly designed and exploded on contact, then the government has some duty to protect its citizens. Even then I don’t think they should be able to ban the sale completely. They can offer consumer guidelines and warning. That’s not the case here. The Tesla is apparently a very safe car although perhaps not as safe as their marketing department would like you to believe.

Texas politicians are looking at legislation that would make a narrow exception for the Tesla but the entire law is clearly designed to stifle competition in favor of local dealers.

I’ll leave it to you to figure out why the politicians decided to pass laws favoring locals.

I’ve got nothing against local businesses. It’s great when they succeed but when government gives them an unfair advantage it hurts consumers.

If Tesla sells a lot of cars then it forces those local Texas dealers to compete. Some of them might lose the competition and go out of business. Those that survive will be the  best dealers in the state. That’s the nature of the free market. Companies that provide a good product at a price point people want, survive.

Propping up a business that can’t compete or passing legislation that favors one company over another is Crony Capitalism. It’s rampant. Democrat? Republican? What’s the difference?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a 300+ page eBook)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Enforcement of the Standard Patent – Obama Ruling

Posted on by

Samsung vs AppleI was astonished to read the headlines that the Obama administration essentially voided a trade panel ruling in the ongoing Apple/Samsung patent wars. Without even reading the stories my immediate reaction was the administration overstepped the separation of powers but I’m learning more and more about this case and my opinion is evolving.

The Essential Patent or Standard Essential Patent is a patent different from non-standard patents. It sounds more complicated than it is. Let’s say I invent a device that makes walking easier, the Easy-Walk. This is a non-standard patent and other people cannot produce anything that is too similar to the Easy-Walk.

On the other hand there are technical standards that everyone who creates particular device follows so that consumers have a standardized product. Plumbing pipes are a certain size for the kitchen as an example. The owner of such a patent is generally required to sell licenses rather than keep the technology for themselves. Otherwise an entire industry, and consumers, suffer.

Watch this video for a better explanation.

Most countries do not enforce patent claims on Standard Essential Patents although Germany is an exception which is why much of the litigation between Samsung and Apple is taking place in that country.

The ongoing dispute between these two technology companies has descended largely into trying to enforce Essential Standard Patents to prevent a rival from selling their technology. If these sorts of lawsuits are allowed to continue there will undoubtedly be a negative effect on the consumer electronic industry which could easily spread to other industries.

The injunction the Obama administration voided was of this kind. Samsung has a patent on an Essential Standard which Apple used in some of their older models. Samsung insisted that Apple should not be allowed to sell them. The Obama administration decided that this pattern of abuse with Essential Standard patents needed to stop. They stepped in with the hopes that the action will discourage others from filing similar claims.

These injunctions represent a real threat to capitalism and, in a way, freedom. If a large company is allowed to enforce Essential Standard Patents then it inhibits, in a significant way, the ability of others to compete in a free and open market. Companies are attempting to destroy each other in the courts rather than making a superior product.

I’m not completely convinced the Obama administration did the right thing in this case but I’m leaning in that direction. Normally I would suggest that the courts impose fines for lawsuits of this nature but the fines are minuscule compared to the loss an injunction against sales causes. Fines are essentially useless in this fight.

If these sorts of lawsuits stop because of the action then it was the right thing to do. If the suits continue then another remedy must be found.

Still, I learned a lot about this because rather than just leaping to a conclusion I stopped and learned more. Always a good thing.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 and you can read it on your phone!)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

NCAA in Violation of their Own Rules

Posted on by

CompensationThe Johnny Manziel situation that I wrote about yesterday continues on and now Texas A&M has hired an attorney to essentially represent the quarterback.

I don’t want to keep reiterating my point that the NCAA runs a corrupt and hypocritical organization but this lawyer hire brought a new angle mind.

The NCAA forbids athletes from receiving any compensation for their services. The athletes are not allowed to have jobs, boosters cannot purchase so much as a lunch for the students without being in violation.

However, the university can hire a lawyer for him? When you think about it, that’s nothing. The university takes profits from ticket sales, luxury booths, television rights, and other revenue streams and spends them on the equipment the players use, the stadium they play in, the laundering of their uniforms, the salary of their coaches, the transportation to various games, and much more.

Isn’t this a violation of their own rules for compensating athletes? If an agent flew an athlete somewhere it would be violation but the team does it multiple times a season. If a booster gave one of the players so much as a baseball cap it would be a violation but their uniform is provided by the school. The only compensation an athlete is supposedly allowed to receive is free room, board, and tuition.

Texas A&M has a huge vested interest in Manziel playing football for them this season. His playing and winning will not only bring immediate financial rewards but help the coaches bring future stars to the team. They recently moved to the highly competitive, and lucrative, Southeastern Conference, and they see dollar signs.

As I said yesterday, I’m not against Texas A&M making money off the player’s efforts. Good for them. They have every right to do so. They have every right to equip, transport, and legally defend a player on their team as well. I’m just saying, unequivocally, that the player also has the right to any and all compensation they can get.

As more and more money pours into the coffers of the NCAA and the universities the situation gets increasingly seedy. It begins to resemble the company store, involuntary servitude. The players have no other reasonable choice. If they want to pursue their chosen profession they must forego monetary compensation, essentially their freedom to make money.

Freedom is an important word to me. I don’t like to see it taken away from people. I will speak out!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Prayer in School – a New Twist

Posted on by

Prayer on School StepsThere’s an interesting situation happening in Concord, New Hampshire wherein a woman has been going to the steps of her local high school and praying, quoting the bible, and expressing her religious views out loud every morning as the students enter the school.

Two of her children attend the school and she was prompted to begin the vigil in February when there was a report that some cartridges were found in a school bathroom.

For the sake of clarity a cartridge is made up of a projectile (bullet), the case, the propellant, the rim, and the primer. People often say bullet when they mean cartridge.

There were complaints from students almost immediately and a local atheist group filed a request seeking to see if the woman was granted permission to do what she was doing. The school eventually asked her to stop speaking but continued to allow her to stand on the stairs. With the coming school year they’ve decided to ask her not to return and she has said she will not, although will continue to pray from across the street or at home.

It’s a reasonable resolution as far as I’m concerned but I’m a little interested in what my readers think. When I answered the poll at the site it indicated 68% thought she should be allowed to continue essentially proselytizing on the school steps. A quick perusal of the comments indicated perhaps the opposite, most people thought she should not be allowed to continue. The religious community in Concord is apparently split as well.

From my perspective her behavior is extremely rude and quite possibly a sign of mental illness. People who insist on shouting out their beliefs in a public setting should just shut up and are not infrequently insane. I don’t like blaring musicians after a Cardinals game where I’m forced to walk past them. I don’t like fanatics at the park yelling whatever they want when I’m trying to enjoy a lunch. I don’t like activists chanting on the sidewalk as I drive to work.

The question here isn’t rudeness or sanity though, it is legality. Should anyone, of any religion, or an atheist for that matter, be allowed onto school property to verbally or even non-verbally express their opinions to what is essentially a captive audience? What about a private school? What about your place of business? What about a restaurant?

The First Amendment guarantees us that the government shall not establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Is the woman freely practicing her religion? Does the fact that it is being done on school grounds, which money from our taxes purchased, mean that it is government sponsored? People have the guaranteed right to religious freedom in this country and this means I shouldn’t be forced to listen to your religion when I’m essentially trapped in a public place. At your home, at my home, quietly over dinner at a restaurant, even in a classroom where open debate is allowed and all sides are given equal time, your right to speak outweighs my right to not have to listen. I can largely leave those situations as I desire.

Noise interrupts my privacy and my constitutional rights. When one person is shouting or even talking loudly in a public place it intrudes on a lot of people. The argument that I don’t have to listen is false. If I want to attend that school, I’ve got to walk past  her or go out of my way to another door. She invades my rights, she invades everyone’s rights who has to walk past and I think that outweighs her own rights no matter if a school, sidewalk, restaurant, or any similar public place.

I think it’s an interesting question because both sides have guaranteed rights in this case. It’s a matter of deciding whose take precedent. I think mine do, but that’s probably not a surprise to anyone who reads my blog regularly.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Pot Raids and Death Sentences

Posted on by

Drug ViolenceThere were two stories in the news yesterday that are related in a sad way. A murderous scum was sentenced to death by a federal court and a marijuana dispensary was raided by federal agents.

How are these two things related? It’s a topic I’ve discussed numerous times before; the War on Drugs or as I call it the Drug Cartel. I spoke about how Mexico became a drug nation thanks in no small part to President Reagan and why the failed war on drugs is nothing more than a system designed to promote violence and wealth (for all the wrong people).

Today I feel the need to talk about these points yet again. I hope I’m not boring everyone.

Now, on to the stories. In 2003 a drug and gun dealer named Ronell Wilson was making a deal with two undercover officers. He decided to rob and kill them. After a number of trials he has been sentenced to death for the cold-blooded murders which no one is denying he committed. Meanwhile in present day America the federal government raided a legal dispensary of marijuana in the great state of Washington.

How are these two things related? Drugs. The only reason James V. Nemorin and Rodney Andrews ever came in contact with Ronell was because they were part of the Drug Cartel. We like to think that only Wilson was a member of the drug cartel but the reality is that without Nemorin and Andrews and others like them out there enforcing ridiculous drug laws, Wilson would not be the leader of a violent gang powered by drug money. Wilson would have had no money, no power. Nemorin and Andrews would be police officers out there today protecting and serving.

I’m certainly not blaming the undercover officers. They were doing the job they were sent to do and died because of it. I’m blaming the people who sent them to do that job.

Now, the marijuana dispensary was raided. There was no violence. The DEA arrived with eight vans, guns drawn, and stormed the place. Why? Because their experience with drug houses is that they are filled with guns and dangerous people. The legal marijuana dispensary was filled with clerks. The workers were scared and surrendered peacefully.

Look at these two incidents. Look at them! Voters, legislatures, courts, law enforcement officers. LOOK AT THEM!!!

I’m a little heated on this one I guess. Our laws and our enforcement of them created all this violence, all this death. Good men dead. Bad men created. If we make drugs legal they will be bought and sold in little stores by clerks instead of in back alleys by murderous scum. It’s that simple.

Will some people ruin their lives with drugs? Certainly. Will there be accidents caused by people on drugs? Yes. Those things are already happening and they are choices made by free people. They choose to take drugs with the bad that comes with it.

Our lives are worse because of the Drug Cartel. Drugs are plentiful whether illegal in nature or prescribed by a doctor.

Nemorin and Andrews are dead and aren’t coming back but maybe we can save someone else. End the Drug Cartel. Make drugs, all drugs, legal. Create laws about activities allowed to be done while under the influence of drugs, create laws on the age someone is allowed to purchase drugs, allow industry to supply demand. End the madness.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99, buy it, read it, review it)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Arrested for Barking

Posted on by

No BarkingThere’s a story in the news today that’s attracting a little attention and it certainly caught my eye. The full details are certainly not yet released but I think it’s worth talking about.

An officer in Alachua County, Florida, was responding to a report of suspicious incidents and a disturbance at a nightclub very early on Sunday morning. The officer was out looking at the vehicle that prompted the initial report. At that point a group of young college students happened to walk past the police car in which there was a police dog.

One of the young men barked at the police dog, later claiming it was because the dog barked at him first. I think that’s actually pretty funny. I’ve barked at a few dogs in my day and mewed at a few cats, I’ll even go as far as to admit that I’ve squawked angrily at a parrot or two when the mood struck me.

The officer ordered the barking man, not dog, to wait at the front of his police car. Then he tried to put handcuffs on the young fellow who resisted this attempt. An arrest quickly followed.

The reason this is big news is that the barking person is a football player for the University of Florida. Antonio Morrison is apparently not the most level-headed of fellows having been previously arrested just a few weeks ago for punching a nightclub bouncer in a dispute about the price of admission.

That being said, if the story doesn’t have any additional information, I’ve got a bone to pick with the arresting officer. In my capacity as a technical trainer I’ve worked with a number of municipalities and police officers and found them to be very reasonable, conscientious people dedicated to doing a difficult job. I’ve also been in a few incidents in which the police were called to house parties or stopped a vehicle I was in or was driving.

Almost universally the police officer who handles things like this incident with good humor results in a favorable outcome for everyone. A smile, ask the rambunctious young fellow to please not bark at the dog, even if provoked, and this sort of thing ends almost immediately.

On the other hand I’ve on occasion seen officers who don’t take the “Protect and Serve” slogan to heart. They use their badge to intimidate and bully. Those sorts of officers give a bad name to the rest. These sorts of officers break down what has to be the congenial and trusting relationship between citizens and law enforcement. When this relationship turns sour then society itself suffers.

The citizens of a nation must trust its law enforcement arm to be a force of protection, a force of good. Not a group dedicated to bullying, intimidation, corruption, and lies.

Now, the young fellow in question seems to have a hot temper and it’s quite possible the officer actually did try to cool down the situation before being forced into drastic action. If that’s the case then I’m completely wrong in calling out this incident. However, as the facts stand at this moment, I think the officer was way out of line. Arrested for barking at a police dog? That’s nonsense.

We think that these are small incident, laughable, but when we erode the relationship between citizens and law enforcement we endanger society. Bully officers need to be reigned in by their supervisors or we risk our freedoms. Good officers, who make up the vast majority of the group, need to step into these situations instead of immediately backing their fellow officer.

Again, I really don’t think this is a major incident but it’s one of those things that could be resolved in two ways. One that hurts society, and the other that helps it. When we have a choice, why not make the better choice?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 and a bargain at that!)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Zimmerman Trial – Final Conclusions

Posted on by

Good choices and bad choicesThe George Zimmerman trial is finally over and the result has people angry. It’s been a long and tumultuous case that brought out some raw and powerful emotions from people on all sides. There are not simply two sides to this case, guilt and innocence and that’s what I want to focus on today, the nuances, the lessons, but also the final verdict.

For the most part people seem to be divided into the Guilty and Not Guilty camps but I think there is a lot more to this case than just that simple questions. There are lessons for everyone.

I’m not going to recap the entire thing because I think most people are pretty aware of the circumstances at this point. I think there is a lot of blame to go around from Zimmerman, to Trayvon Martin, to the police, to the prosecutor, the voices of black and white, total guilt or complete innocence, and, of course, violent protestors. This is one of those situations where emotions run high and it is difficult to analyze dispassionately. That’s what I’m going to try to do today. I suspect my thoughts will not soothe the anger on either side of the issue but that won’t stop me from trying.

A man of one race killed a teenage boy of another race. That’s a fact. No one is denying it.

The first mistake was made by Zimmerman when he didn’t follow police instructions, followed Martin, and didn’t identify himself as a member of the neighborhood watch. The second mistake was Martin’s when he didn’t calmly explain to Zimmerman who he was and why he had a right to be where he was. If Zimmerman is to be believed, and the evidence supports it, Martin made a second mistake when he physically attacked Zimmerman.

The next mistake was made by the police. Zimmerman was brought in by the police and questioned. One officer wanted to hold him and do a more comprehensive investigation but another, higher up friend of Zimmerman, squashed this idea and let him walk free. The police did not canvas the neighborhood looking for witnesses. They did at best a cursory investigation. This was a huge mistake and quite possibly led to the entirety of the rest of the situation. If the police had immediately held Zimmerman and done a thorough investigation much of what happened later could have been avoided. They didn’t. If the police had brought the evidence to the prosecutor, the grand jury, and either had found there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute, likely true, then I think most people would have accepted it at this point. Things would not have escalated.

The police did not and the community was enraged. They held protests. Zimmerman was arrested again. In order to get a lower bail he lied to the judge. Not a bright move. The judge was rightfully angry, his own lawyer furious. If I can give you any advice; don’t mess around with judges in their courtroom. You think doctors like to play god? It also taints any statement Zimmerman makes at a later date. He is willing to lie to judge? When won’t he lie?

Now the prosecutor was backed into a corner. Even without good evidence he was pressured into bringing the case to court. Still, that’s not an excuse. If there isn’t enough evidence to support a prosecution then it should not be brought to the docket.

Things then proceeded well from the state’s perspective. They held an orderly and fair trial, both prosecutor and defense attorneys vigorously did their job. A verdict was arrived at that seems largely just. Yes, Zimmerman is a known liar, but the evidence largely supports his story. It seems to me he cannot be convicted based on the existing Florida self-defense laws. Laws put in place by a legislature legally elected by voters.

Sadly the mistakes didn’t end there. Many people were upset by the verdict and some of them reacted violently which is both stupid in that it doesn’t further their cause and dangerous to them and others. In my opinion the largest disservice occurring now is the insistence upon making the entire thing racial, from both sides. I see Facebook posts comparing the Zimmerman/Martin case to the murder of white people by black people when the cases couldn’t be more dissimilar. I see people claiming Zimmerman got off because of his racial background, that he was only prosecuted because of his racial background. This case is not about, has never been about, the fact that Zimmerman is one color and Martin was another.

We should focus on the mistakes, understand them, try to learn from them. Martin is dead and nothing will change that.

Neighborhood watch members should learn to listen to police, to identify themselves. Innocent people should explain their actions when accused, particular if the accusation is unjust, rather than becoming belligerent, violent. Police should be thorough in their investigation of any incident that leaves one party dead. People should be less quick to blame one another and fire off angry words.

My final conclusion? My actions have consequences. The decisions I make are important to my life and to others. I try to make good ones. So should we all. Bad decisions can have tragic consequences. Let’s try to avoid them. Not much ground breaking there I suppose.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Secession Chatter

Posted on by
Secession

Today I want to talk about the idea secession. Part of a state seceding from the whole and becoming their own state. The main thrust of my talk is why I don’t approve. Why I think those making such suggestions are quitters and whiners. But first, a history lesson. Those wanting to get to my opinion can skip down a few paragraphs.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

That’s the Rule

That’s it. That’s the Constitution of the United States. That is the rule.

Basically, if you want to secede from your state you must have majority approval from the legislature of your state and you must have approval from the United States Congress. It’s happened, sort of, four times in the history of the United States.

  • Western Virginia counties successfully negotiated a secession deal with the rest of Virginia in 1790 and became a state, Kentucky, in 1792.
  • Eight counties of North Carolina were ceded, by the state itself, to the federal government and eventually became part of Tennessee in 1796.
  • Maine was legally but not geographically a part of Massachusetts. They seceded and became a state in 1820.
  • Finally western counties of Virginia illegally seceded from Virginia and were recognized as a state, West Virginia, during the civil war.

West Virginia

The last one is the one most interesting from a legal perspective because Virginia had already seceded from the Union on its own and didn’t vote to allow the western counties to leave, a necessary legal precursor. The U.S. government argued that because Virginia didn’t consider itself part of the Union that the Constitution didn’t apply. However, it was the policy of the U.S. government throughout the war that the secession of the southern states was illegal and they never really did leave the union. This, in my opinion, makes the entire state of West Virginia an illegal state.

When I’m in charge; back to Virginia with you!

My Point about Secession

Anyway, I’ll finally get to the point of my blog today. People become upset when their political views are not popular enough to win electoral victory. They lost an election. It happens. Rather than try to diligently spread their message, to convince people of the righteousness of their cause, they simply stomp off in a huff declaring they’re taking their toys and going home. Cry me a river. Little babies.

We live in a country with free elections. I’m tired of people trying to change the rules be it election reform laws (designed not to make elections fair but to disenfranchise voters who disagree with a particular party), gerrymandering (drawing up election maps designed simply to get more seats in congress that have no basis in geographical reality), talks of secession, or anything else.

We live in a time where anyone can get their message out. I’m an Atheist Libertarian. I feel trodden upon all the time. My party managed to convince a whopping one out of every one-hundred people to vote for us. Do you see me trying to change the laws so I can win? Trying to form my own state of Libertarians?

What you seeing me doing is writing my novels, writing this blog, talking to my friends, my family, and trying to explain my position. Trying to explain why I think the ideas I espouse are good for the world, good for the United States, good for my beloved Missouri. If I do a good enough job then Libertarians will start winning elections. If I don’t, I’ll continue to be in the minority.

I don’t blame Republicans and Democrats. I don’t think my friends who don’t vote Libertarian are Sheeple incapable of making a decision on their own. I think we are an educated electorate and we largely vote for the candidates who we best think will represent our point of view.

I lost the last election and the all the ones before that. I’m not holding my breath, whining, and taking my toys home. I’m out here trying to convince people I’m right, and I’ll continue to do so.

Conclusion

If you want to win an election; show people your ideas are better. It’s that simple.

Tom Liberman

Ten Years for Trolling

Posted on by

Troll in JailThere are a number of interesting cases making their way through the justice system in several countries that involve threatening words written during internet conversations. It’s interesting for a number of legal reasons and it’s not as clear-cut as people would like to imagine.

A person makes one crazy post in an internet chat room and now sits in prison awaiting trial and a possible sentence of ten years in jail. Another makes a series of threats on a memorial page for a slain teen, pleads guilty, and is sentenced to twenty-eight months in prison.

Most threats of this nature not only never amount to anything but they weren’t made with any intention of being carried out. Still, when you threaten to kill people the authorities have every right to come by and see if you have made any plans to carry out said attack.

Part of me feels bad for Justin Carter and Reece Elliot but another part of me thinks that their incarceration is not without merit. When you threaten to kill a classroom full of children, when you post disgusting and threatening remarks on a memorial page for “a laugh” then maybe you shouldn’t be surprised to hear a knock at the door. The police take their difficult job seriously and well they should.

As the A.C.L.U lawyer mentions in the first article that I linked, we don’t joke around about bombs in airports anymore. We know it can get us, should get us, a conversation with a large man in a small room. Insane people are out there planning such attacks and if you joke around about making one yourself, well, don’t come crying to me that is was all in fun, a joke, sarcasm.

I do think prosecutors should be able to separate real threats from people just saying incredibly stupid things. That people who say violent, angry things but have no weapons, no plans to actually carry out their threats, have taken no actions towards carrying out threats, should be treated more kindly.

In the United States you cannot be arrested for saying you hate President Obama. You wish he wasn’t president. Political speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and rightly so. When the government can arrest you for saying you don’t like a politician, that you dislike, say, the Evil Chicago Cubs, then we have lost our freedom. However, if you threaten to kill the president, expect a visit from the Secret Service. If you have purchased weapons and bought a plane ticket to Washington D.C., well, you get what you very well should get. A stint in the big house.

I’ve said it over and over on this blog. Words have meaning. Words hurt. You trolls out there; keep that in mind. There is a line and it can be crossed. When it is crossed you won’t get much sympathy, not even from Libertarians like me. Prison is not the place you want to end up because you wanted a few lulz.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+ pages of action packed excitement and moral lessons galore)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Wages Paid via Fee Ridden Cards

Posted on by

It's My MoneyAn increasingly large number of Americans do not have bank accounts. This number has grown by about ten percent in the last four years and is expected to climb. This presents what some view as a dilemma and others view as an opportunity.

In this internet age it is more expensive for an employer to print out checks and much cheaper to use direct deposit. This being the case, more and more employers are dropping the check option. Whether or not this effects you is dependent upon where you live as there are different rules in each state. It is a growing trend and one that will certainly continue to rise.

The problem end of the issue is how to pay employees who don’t have bank accounts of any sort and cannot accept direct deposits. To solve this issue banks began to allow employers to pay their employees onto what are called payroll cards. At this point all seems well and good. If people choose not to have a bank account that’s certainly their option. If companies choose to save money by using direct deposit that is also within their legal right, depending upon the state.

Banks incur some expenses in issuing these payroll cards and the plan was to recoup this amount through charges on the cards. There is a charge to deposit money on the card, a charge to withdraw money with the card, a charge to inquire on the balance of the card, a charge to receive a statement for the card, a charge to replace the card, and even an inactivity charge if you don’t use the card!

I think you can guess that the banking industry quickly realized that this service they were providing offered an opportunity to make a lot of money. They started to push the idea to the companies, some even give kick backs … er … rewards, to businesses that have their employees use payroll cards.

Companies enjoy these rewards and started to make it easier for employees to get the payroll cards and more difficult for them to use direct deposits. A woman sued because a McDonald’s refused to direct deposit into her Credit Union. That was, of course, illegal and they’ve agreed to start offering direct deposit to their employees now.

Other companies are simply making it very difficult to use direct deposits because banks are offering them major rewards for every employee then can get on the payroll card.

I’m not totally against the banks here. They are providing a service to people who choose not to have bank accounts and that service needs to be paid for with fees. However, it is clear that the banking industry sees this as not a way to provide a service but a way to steal money from people. Yes, I said steal. If the banks were charging some minimal fee and making a small profit on the cards I wouldn’t call it stealing but when they colluded with companies to provide no other option and charge far more than it costs to provide the service they are engaged in anti-trust practices.

This practice affects the poorest people the most as they are generally the ones without bank accounts and without other recourse. They need that minimum wage job and can’t easily go somewhere else. As the check payment method continues to decline their options will become even more limited.

What’s the solution? It’s not easy. The government could start to regulate these payroll cards for excessive fees like they do banks for other services but such efforts often end up with unintended consequences.

What I would love to see is a return to real competition. A group of people sees an opportunity to offer cards with lower fees and starts a Credit Union or Bank. This forces the existing banks to lower their fees until a competitive and fair level is reached. Right now the we don’t live in a capitalistic country anymore. We live in a country where if you tried to do that you’d be legislated out of business by the crony capitalist in your community, your state, and in Washington D.C. Anti-trust practices are ignored. The business that pays for the elections gets legislation passed that ensure their success and rival’s failure.

This system is so dangerous that it could potentially destroy our great nation. It is not the threat Ayn Rand warned us about in the communist dominated era when she wrote her novels but the effects are the same.

Rand warns us of the dangers of giving not what is earned but what is needed; communism.

If she was alive today I think she would have warned us that it is just as dangerous to allow success not to be derived through hard work, fair prices, and good ideas but instead through political connections; crony capitalism.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 is a fair price for 300+ pages of my hard work, if you disagree, don’t buy it!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Facebook Privacy and Chelsea Chaney

Posted on by

Chelsea Chaney Snoop PictureThere’s yet another Facebook Privacy story in the news lately and I thought in this case it was interesting enough, and different enough, to talk about.

In this situation a student in Georgia posted a family vacation picture of herself wearing a bikini. Somewhat surprisingly she posted on Facebook instead of Instagram because all the nerdy adults like me use Facebook whereas the cool kids have long since moved on. That aside, this is where things take a turn to the interesting.

Somehow a copy of the picture ended up in the hands of the school’s director of technology who used it during a presentation to demonstrate the permanency of social media information. The director of technology did not get, nor even seek, permission to use the photo in the presentation. The student is now suing the school district for $2 million.

There seems to be a lot of passion on both sides of the debate with one group calling Chelsea Chaney stupid for posting on Facebook and not expecting the picture to be displayed publicly, greedy because of the lawsuit, and apparently a slut because she wore a bikini. The other side seems to think the director of technology was likely a pervert and disgusting for using the photo.

To understand whether or not the picture was used legally we must examine something called Fair Use and Copyright.

Whoever took the picture had copyright ownership immediately. There is no need to register a work for it to be copyrighted. This right includes the right to perform or display the work publicly. So, the picture clearly falls into that category.

In this case the Fair Use doctrine falls under the education exception. Basically people can often use images of this nature if they are not for profit and for educational purposes. Clearly that is at least the intention in this case. The law gets pretty murky about the definition of educational and profit and the courts will eventually decide.

I see both sides of the story here. Chelsea is an attractive young woman and the picture was used at least partially because of this. The school claims the picture was chosen randomly but I strongly suspect that’s not the case. It was chosen specifically because she is attractive and the picture would garner attention. The fact that she posted it to Facebook really isn’t a factor from my perspective. Someone besides Chelsea was using her image in a way she did not intend. She was, at that time, not a public figure. She is now and that’s why I can get away with using her picture without the threat of a lawsuit. Also, the picture above is considered a thumbnail and generally avoids copyright restrictions.

On the other side I suspect the director of technology meant only to use it to make a point about the permanency of images posted to social media. It was not meant to make a profit or embarrass Chelsea.

That being said, it did embarrass Chelsea. I cannot tell her whether she should be embarrassed or horrified, that is her decision. If she says she was, then she was. That’s the law. You cannot prove mental pain and suffering. If the plaintiff claims it, then it exists. It’s up to the judge to decide on how big a settlement, if any, should be awarded.

What should be the resolution? Here’s my take. The director of technology should publicly apologize to Chelsea in front of as many people as were at that conference as can be reasonably gathered. A school official should publicly apologize to Chelsea in front of the entire student body. Chelsea should accept both apologies and drop her lawsuit. She should explain that she filed merely because she didn’t want to happen to others what happened to her.

Finally to the ugly undercurrent of the many comments I see. Chelsea is a pretty girl with a nice figure. Therefore people get their jollies calling her stupid, a slut, someone deserving of what she gets. Chelsea is a pretty girl with a nice figure so the school administrator must be a disgusting pervert because he was drooling over her pictures.

We are too quick to judge in this world. If we insist that cave dwellers are the only ones eligible to be president, to be co-workers, to be teachers, we are going to get the kind of people who live in caves. We don’t want them. We want people who have lived, who take fun pictures (Chelsea), who have made mistakes in life (the director of technology). The kind of people who are our friends, our family, our co-workers, the kind of people we are ourselves.

Stop judging and start living.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+ pages of sword and sorcery excitement)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Traitor or Patriot – a Matter of Conscience

Posted on by

Benedict ArnoldThere are two stories in the headlines today that bring to mind an incredibly difficult dilemma that men and women of conscience must sometimes face. I will examine this question in great detail in my next novel, The Spear of the Hunt. Where is the line one crosses between being a patriot and being a traitor? At first glance the two seem diametrically opposed to one another but in these stories they are clearly linked.

A fellow named Bradley Manning leaked secret military information to an organization called WikiLeaks and is currently being tried for this transgression. Another man named Edward Snowden recently admitted to releasing secret government information about U.S. intelligence agency techniques used to monitor telephone conversations. He has fled to Hong Kong. Both of these issues are extremely complex and I’m not going to debate the right and wrong of them here today. What I do want to discuss is the decision that both men had to make. A decision that many people have had to make throughout history and, as I mentioned, that the protagonist of my next novel will have to make.

I don’t doubt for a moment that both Manning and Snowden believed they were doing the right thing. I don’t think either man meant to hurt the United States and both  likely suffered tremendous mental anxiety before they decided to release their respective pieces of information. There is also no doubt that both men did compromise U.S. interests by revealing these secret. A fellow named Benedict Arnold faced a similar question in his time.

Let’s put ourselves in their situation for a moment. We love our country. We have information that causes us to doubt the path our leaders are taking us on. We make some sort of attempt to rectify the situation through accepted channels but our effort is rebuffed. What should we do? This decision defines us as either a traitor or a patriot. We want to do what’s right, to make our nation stronger. Perhaps we are naive, perhaps we are stupid, but our intentions are good. Do we expose what we consider to be dangerous activity by our government or do we keep the secret? Our parents taught us to do what’s right, not to be a mindless worker drone content to simply follow orders. There are plenty of those out there and that kind of person doesn’t build a nation. Men and women of courage, who stand up for what is right are the kind of people who make a nation strong.

One only has to read the commentary on Manning’s case to see the vitriol his decision has engendered. People want to hang him. People want to pin medals on his chest. I’m certain Snowden will likewise face such scrutiny. Their lives are forever changed because they had the courage to stand up for what they thought was right. Standing up for what is right is not the safe way to journey through life. You can suffer for doing it. It takes courage and leads to change. Whether that change is for the better or not is unclear.

My goal today isn’t to exonerate or eviscerate either Manning or Snowden, but simply to point out that their actions cannot easily be classified as right or wrong. As much as we’d like to sound bite judge I think a more careful examination is in order. History will eventually give them their place in the world.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not proclaiming them heroes. There are plenty of examples of people of courage standing up for what they think is right when it was completely wrong. There are many examples of murderous villains who stood up for their misguided principles. Lynch mobs, Islamic bombers, men who open fire on politicians, they all thought they were doing right, they weren’t.

I’m not sure where Manning and Snowden will eventually find themselves in the public eye. The fine line between Patriot and Traitor is worth examining because it can apply to even our lives. At work, at home, when is it best to stay quiet, when does our conscience insist we speak up?

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (300+ pages of adventure for $2.99)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (General Yumanar must decide between supporting the corrupt politicians or overthrowing them)