Category Archives: Law

Zumba Madam and Privacy in Maine

Posted on by

There’s an interesting case making its way through the Maine judicial system. A young woman named Alexis Wright and her partner, Mark Strong, are accused of running a prostitution ring through a Zumba studio. The reason it is big news is that Wright video-taped some encounters and kept excellent records.

The controversy is that the names of the men who used the service are possibly going to be made public. Apparently the men on the list make up a high-profile segment of the population of Kennebunk, Maine. They are fighting to make sure their names are not revealed as it will damage their reputation and hurt innocent people (their families). They argue this “list of shame” unfairly lists men who have not been convicted of a crime.

I find the case interesting for several reasons. I’m skeptical that prostitution should be illegal in the first place, fodder for another blog. The main reason I’m intrigued is the idea that somehow the people who hired the woman are thought to be entitled to privacy protection when they are accused of a crime. When anyone is accused of a crime, except juveniles, their name is released to the public.

The men who used the service are claiming that such an accusation will ruin their family dynamic and their reputation in the community. Their children will be subject to schoolyard bullying, their wives subject to vicious gossip, etc.

The idea that prostitution is a victimless crime is fairly reasonable. Certainly it is two adults who willingly engage in a contract and neither is a victim. There are victims, namely the families of both parties, but the reality is that we have little or no control of anyone else and if a relative chooses to behave shamefully there’s not much we can do about it.

My conclusion is that there should be no legal difference between a prostitute, a madam, or a client. If I get a traffic ticket that’s a matter of public record. If I choose to visit a woman for sexual favors, and it is regarded as a crime, then I should expect to have my name released.

As a Libertarian I find that the mantra of personal responsibility that dominates political talk is just that these days … talk. I’ve found that those who talk about personal responsibility the most seem to be the ones who practice it the least. Not a surprise there.

What do you think?

[polldaddy poll=6606995]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Hammer of Fire
Upcoming Release: The Sword of Water

Pepper Spray and the Police Officer

Posted on by

Pepper SprayBack in the heady days before I was blogging with WordPress I used Facebook to express my views and I wrote about the officer at the University of California Davis who pepper sprayed a group of protesting citizens. The case has now been settled with each of the students receiving about $30,000. The officer in question was fired some time ago.

Here’s what I wrote originally.

For me the worst is the knee jerk lie that they were surrounded and threatened. Why not say, “The officer made an error in judgment, we are going to give him a week without pay, ask him to apologize to the individuals effected, give our officers more training,” etc.

I stand by that comment. The officer was way out of line. We have the right to peaceably assemble in the United States and the original claim that they were surrounded and in danger was a clear fabrication based on videos taken at the time. Now, it’s entirely possible that even if the campus police had acted in the way I describe above that there still would have been lawsuits and a firing. But, I like to think that we could have actually gotten something better than a bit of money and the unhealthy satisfaction of vengeance. Everyone involved might have learned a valuable lesson. Maybe the officer could have become friends with some of the students. I don’t know, the student’s might have gotten to know about the pressures police face every day if only everyone had gotten together and gotten over their hurt feelings and anger.

I would say this to you. The next time somebody behaves in a way that makes you angry don’t respond back with anger. Try to be nice. There’s a limit to that of course. If they continue to bully then they deserve what they get.

Our society, our politicians, our blog commenters fire off angry, hate-filled, vicious attacks against their opponents and we’re becoming a society that doesn’t look for resolution, we look for conflict. We want conflict, we thrive on conflict. This is not good for our country or our society. It’s not easy to be kind when someone says something vicious about you or lies to cover-up something they’ve done. It’s hard, I challenge you to face that challenge and overcome it. If the other person remains belligerent then stronger action may be required. Just hold off on that nasty reply and try some kindness instead.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Hammer of Fire
Upcoming Release: The Sword of Water

Fired for 1963 Fake Dime Stunt – How Badly Worded Laws Endanger Freedom

Posted on by

Bad WordingThere is an interesting little case in the news today that reminds me how important it is that legislators draft well-worded laws. A fellow by the name of Richard Eggers worked for Wells Fargo as a customer service representative. Way back in 1963 he used a fake dime to do some laundry. He was sentenced to two-days in jail for this crime and served his time.

There is federal legislation in the banking industry that forbids companies to employ anyone convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust or money laundering. That’s pretty broad and without an exception for misdemeanors and a statute of limitations it can be used unfairly. One supposes that Mr. Eggers may have been fired for other reasons but let’s ignore that for the moment and focus on how badly worded legislation can easily be abused by aggressive employers and prosecutors.

The law is designed to prevent con-artist type people from gaining employment in the banking industry. The thinking being that such people will dupe investors out of large sums of money and shake the faith in the banking business. I’m just not sure that such a blanket law is useful.

While it seems to make sense that we don’t want such people at banks I think it runs counter to Libertarian ideals. If a person is competent at their job then they should keep it. If they excel at their job they should be promoted. If a person once committed a crime then that should be taken into account when hiring that person certainly, but to eliminate them from consideration because of previous acts, for which they’ve already been punished, seems unfair.

Many of the laws that came out of the financial crisis are intended to ease the minds of the public but do little to actually prevent the activities that led to the problems. Frankly, I’m in disagreement over laws that prevent hiring someone because of previous misdeeds for which they’ve already been punished but that’s really secondary to my main argument.

When laws are passed to try to prevent something they need to be carefully worded. In this law there is wording that allows for a waiver if the crime didn’t involve jail time. It seems to me that it could easily be modified to include misdemeanors even if they involved some minimal sentence.

I don’t think regulatory laws are all bad nor do I think the people who enacted this law meant for it to be enforced in this fashion.

People will always try to twist the exact wording of laws to their own benefit and careful consideration must be made while writing legislation. The problem is that changing badly worded laws becomes quite difficult when getting the law passed in the first place was contentious. As was the case here.

There is no easy answer to problems like this. Badly worded laws are dangerous to the freedom of all free people. They will be abused by zealous judges, prosecutors, employers, law enforcement officials, and others to try to bring about an unjust resolution.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Animal Torture in Iowa – The Government Moves to Help … Abusers

Posted on by

turkey abuseI was, once again, made aware of the sick depths to which government will bend to those who pay the election bills. It’s become a fairly regular occurrence for an Animal Rights Activist group to gain employment at animal husbandry facilities and then take videos of the vicious, vile, sickening torture of animals.

In Iowa the state legislature has responded with House File 589. This bill bans people from taking employment at factory farms under “false pretenses”. Thus, the people who get into the farm and film the vile, sickening, disgusting, horrific, inhuman torture of animal will be put in prison for gaining access under false pretenses. The people who do the abuse, the people who allow it to happen on their property, minimal punishment when they are found out.

I urge you to brace yourself and watch this video.

Butterball is horrified by this abuse and is taking action. Frankly, I’m skeptical. I’m disgusted. I’ve seen a number of these videos now and it kills a little part of my humanity every time.

The Iowa legislature is made up of 42 Democratic Representatives and 59 Republican. 26 Democratic Senators and 24 Republican. The Governor of Iowa, who signs the bills, is Republican Terry Branstad.

They will tell you, with a straight face, this bill is designed to keep vandals off the property of farms. That is a lie. It is designed to prevent animal rights groups from filming the horror of animal abuse. How these politicians look their children in the eye I do not know.

I beg you my Republican and Democrat friends to vote for independents. Vote for people who still have a conscience. Vote with your purchases. Buy your meat from local farmers who treat their animals with dignity.

Insist on legislation that puts 24-hour-a-day cameras on the farm workers. Web cameras are cheap and could easily be put into all factory farms at minimal cost. The video could stream live and activists could watch at no cost to the government. There would be many volunteers. I’d be willing to bet animal activists would install and maintain the cameras for free with no government intervention, no cost to the farms, and no cost to the taxpayers.

Please take a stand, we can’t let evil win.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Facebook Girls Face Felony Charges

Posted on by

SlanderThere was an interesting article about how two girls, aged 12 and 13, created a Facebook profile purportedly of another girl and then used it to make posts to humiliate and socially hurt the impersonated girl. The parents of the victim approached the local sheriff who conducted an investigation and learned the identity of the girls who now face felony charges.

It’s an interesting case to me for a number of reasons. I had a conversation with a buddy about a year or so ago about this sort of situation that changed my mind. At first I argued that kids bully one another frequently and as long as it doesn’t get too physically violent it is just part of life. My friend pointed out that such behavior is not well tolerated in the adult world but more importantly that cyber-bullying leaves hard evidence behind.

Typical bully behavior from when I was a child would become a situation of he said/she said with evidence hard to come by. That is no longer the situation, as we see in this case. These young girls impersonated another person, not for financial gain, but to threaten third parties, reportedly from the first person, and otherwise cause social distress.

This is not an isolated incident nor is it a phenomenon restricted to young people. Small towns are undergoing an epidemic of such behavior via a social site called Topix. It is all pretty much like vicious gossip except, and this is important, there is hard evidence left behind. Evidence means legal remedies are more likely. People hurt by gossip, their business ruined, facing social ostracism, might well have legal recourse.

What’s the resolution? You know me by now, I’m not one to stand by and complain about a situation without offering solutions.

If you plan to break laws, be prepared to accept the consequences. If you say something bad about someone that might have real negative consequences to that person then there might be repercussions. Now, as to individual cases, I think they are best settled out of court with apologies, public confessions of wrongdoing, and parental punishment. I would argue that such resolutions are better for both the girls and the victim but I don’t presume to make decisions for those negatively affected. If they want to involve the police and the courts that’s their business.

Kids need to learn lessons and so do adults. If you tell a lie about someone that is potentially libelous or slanderous you might well face your day in court. Keep that in mind.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Jerry Frank Townsend Case – Wrongful Conviction

Posted on by

Jerry TownsendI often hammer home my theme of Randian Objectivism which includes rewarding those who achieve but there is another side to that and one almost as important. Those who do wrong must be punished or at least investigated thoroughly.

A mentally retarded man named Jerry Frank Townsend was wrongfully framed by police for a crime that DNA evidence eventually exonerated him from committing. The real criminal then went on and killed ten more women and children although at least one police detective strongly suspected that person even during the original trial.

Now, I don’t want to get into how awful the situation was for the wrongly imprisoned man, or how unjust were the subsequent rapes and murders. I do want to discuss why the officers involved in the original frame-up were not thoroughly investigated and at least reprimanded.

Prosecutors claim to have looked into the case and determined that perjury cannot be proven and I’ll take them at their word but they apparently never spoke with the detectives who handled the case. Detectives who testified that Townsend led them to the murder scenes and gave them information only the killer could have known, these being clearly false statements. There is a suggestion that the detectives fabricated evidence, coerced witnesses and the defendant (who confessed to the crimes), and even withheld evidence from the defense team.

I don’t know if any of that is true but I do know that the detectives that ran the investigation should be thoroughly investigated and at the very least reprimanded although both are since retired.

What I really want to discuss is why this wasn’t thoroughly investigated and I’d love for some police officers and detectives to chime in. I’m of the opinion that the vast majority of people want to do their job properly. Police officers in particular who I have met (I’ve taught some computer classes to officers) are extremely dedicated and conscientious.  They do their difficult job and take tremendous and well-earned pride in protecting me, my family, and my friends.

Just like I know people who I’ve worked with in the past who were corrupt I’m sure that the great detectives and officers out there are well aware of the corrupt few on the job. The argument goes that we must protect the honor of the institution. That if word of such misdeeds got out that it would tarnish the reputation of the company or industry. We see this logic again and again but it is completely flawed.

If such organizations would immediately ferret out and punish wrong-doing, or if the information comes years later, still go about the business of exposing such corruption to the light of the world then their organization would not suffer, it would blossom!

When we cover-up corruption and misdeeds we simply embolden the worst among us and inhibit the best. There is nothing worse than watching an incompetent co-worker be praised for a job poorly done. It saps our own desire to succeed and destroys the organization from within.

So, as a Randian objectivist, I say to Broward County, turn the full light of investigation on these activities. If nothing comes of it then nothing comes of it. But, by hiding the misdeeds of the few we hurt the honor of the many. We must punish misdeeds and reward heroics. That is the road to success, be it a business, an army, or a police force.

Please, tell me what you think with comments!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Abused Students Sue School District – Paul Chapel Case

Posted on by

AccusationThere’s a horrendous case making its way through the court system and I suspect you’ll be hearing more about it in the coming months. An elementary school teacher named Paul Chapel was accused of lewd acts against children and suspended. At issue is that Chapel was previously accused of such crimes and that the school district should not have hired him. Two of his former students are suing the School District for not considering his previous record and hiring him in the first place.

That’s where the case takes an interesting turn from a societal aspect. In the original case the jury was unable to reach a verdict and Chapel was released. There is a third case as well where Chapel showed a sexually explicit video and made inappropriate remarks to students. He lost that civil case and paid the plaintiffs.

Now, if a person is accused of crime but not convicted is it fair or even legal to refuse to employ them for another job? That’s the crux of the lawsuit filed by the abused former students. Is Paul Chapel facing his date in court now, yes. Is Paul Chapel very likely a filthy scumbag, yes. If someone has been accused of say, robbing a bank, is it really necessary that a bank employ that person in the future?

There are a number of cases of people being wrongly accused and it ruining their lives. It’s a really difficult situation made even worse in this case because the crime so horribly affects other people. Wikipedia suggests that between 2% and 10% of all sexual abuse accusations are false. This seems to occur largely in custody situations when a parent is convinced abuse occurred and “coaches” the child who originally denied such activity.

Many of you may remember a panic about satanic abuse a few years back. A now discredited psychologist’s report about satanic abuse led to the McMartin case. I won’t go into details but please take a look. I’m just trying to display how someone’s life can be destroyed through false accusations and asking whether the school district would have been unfair to deny Chapel a job when he was not convicted of a crime.

This case puts a terrible burden on employers. If a prospective employee has been accused, but not convicted, of a crime and they hire that person who then commits a similar crime, are they liable? If so, they certainly must not hire the person. But, by not hiring someone who was never convicted of a crime is that person’s livelihood being taken from them unjustly thus presenting more legal avenues?

It’s a really tough one considering the nature of the crime but I have to come to the conclusion the school district is not liable. The civil case in which Chapel was found guilty muddies the water even further. I would say that a district could easily refuse employment because of that situation but perhaps Chapel convincingly apologized, claimed religious salvation, admitted to a terrible mistake and promised never to do anything like it again. I don’t know the details but all that seems plausible.

As a society we must try to remember that false accusations occur and that people so tainted should be treated fairly. If we don’t then we simply encourage false accusations by people with an agenda against the accused. It happens all too often. We see a similar phenomenon in politics where once leveled, charges remain in voters minds regardless of their veracity. That’s fodder for another day.

This is a brutal one and I’d love to hear other people’s opinion. Let me know in the comments.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Afghanistan Adultery Murder – The Bible

Posted on by

stoningA lot of people are up in arms about the execution of a woman in Afghanistan. As is my want I’m not going to go after an easy target. The people who would do this are vile. We all agree. Let’s take a look at the mentality that justifies such acts.

Old Testament

Leviticus 20:10 – If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Deut. 22:23 – If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her.

Deut. 22:24 – Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

The Reported Words of Jesus

Matthew 5:28 – But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 5:32 – But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Quran

Sura 24 (An-Nur), ayat 2 – The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

Interestingly I had been badly misled about adultery cases. To be convicted of adultery the accused woman must be testified against by four witnesses who saw the act in question. I had alway heard that the woman had to produce four witnesses to prove she was raped but it is, in fact, the other way around. If four witnesses don’t confirm the original accusation the accusers is to be whipped.

Sura 24 (An-Nur), ayat 4-5 – And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses, flog them, (giving) eighty stripes, and do not admit any evidence from them ever; and these it is that are the transgressors.Except those who repent after this and act aright, for surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The religious case against adultery is clear. It is evil and wrong and punishable by stoning in Jewish/Christian faith and whipping or stoning in Islamic faith. And, according to Jesus, if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery in your heart. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

Of course, this is madness. Few, if any, Christians agree with the punishment although almost all agree that it is a crime; despite often being flagrant violators of it.

The biggest issues comes with literalism as contrasted with Biblical Criticism. Basically you either believe the bible or quran is the absolutely literal truth or believe it is in need of interpretation according to the times.

Literalism is most closely associated with Evangelical Christians in the United States and proponents of Sharia law amongst Muslims.

If the words of the holy book are literal truths and adultery, even looking lustfully at a woman, is a capital offense there seems to be only one solution. Kill all men, except the gay ones, oh wait, gotta kill them too!

This is one reason I’m proud to stand in front of any group and proclaim that my faith is in the Constitution of the United States. That the holy books were written by people. That I am an Atheist. There is no god and certainly the exact words of the supposed god and saviors are unmitigated insanity. There are others who think differently. Some of those others kill women for the crime of adultery.

Where to you stand? Let me know in the comments.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Wrong Vote in Fracking Legislation

Posted on by

Voting ButtonsThere was an interesting incident in North Carolina when a legislator accidentally pushed the wrong voting button and overturned a veto by the governor. Unlike the article comments I don’t intend to debate the technology dubbed fracking. I want to talk about why the vote was ruled unchangeable.

In North Carolina it is permissible to change a vote after the final tally but not when said vote is the deciding one. At first I thought how stupid is that? You can change a vote except when it is most important? Then, being the good Randian critical thinker that I am, I sat down and tried to figure out why there would be such a rule.

It only took me a few seconds to understand the concept. Let’s say there is some legislation that is basically good but negatively impacts a particular representative’s district. Then that representative can vote against it so as to tell their constituents as a campaigning point. But, if that vote decides the issue they might think twice and change their vote so as to pass legislation with which they agree.

I pressed the wrong button might really mean, oh, didn’t realize my vote was going to be the decider, better change it. Once one vote swings the outcome then all of a sudden other legislators might say, oops, I voted wrong also and push it back the other way. A never-ending mess is created.

So, in this case, I think the North Carolina legislator has to stick to its rules.

I will note that the politician in question owned up to the mistake and understands the rules. She asked to change it, was denied, and is now moving on. Good for her. There will be more votes, lesson learned.

It’s sometimes amazing how a little bit of critical thinking can completely change one’s original reaction to an event. My current view is exactly the opposite of what I thought at first.

Don’t lock into a position! Think it through critically. You might be surprised what you end up deciding.

[polldaddy poll=6365319]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Roger Clemens – Steroids or Lies which is worse?

Posted on by

Sports DopingI’m happy to say that I’d all but forgotten the government’s misguided attempt to prosecute Roger Clemens for lying to Congress in their investigation of performance enhancing drugs. But, the news of his acquittal brought it back in full force and I thought I’d use my considerable blogging power to shed some light on the subject.

Basically, there are very few admirable people in this entire mess. The fact that athletes used and continue to use performance enhancing drugs, illegal or not, is not arguable. It is currently taking place and was in the past as well.

Let’s trace the roots of this disaster and look at it from a Libertarian, critical thinking point of view.

As always, Wikipedia has an excellent article that traces performance enhancing drugs in sports. There is evidence of “doping” in antiquity using plant extracts and laudanum or opium were used in walking races, popular in England around the early 1800s. Bicycle racing has long been immersed in drugs. There is no question that performance enhancement drugs have been around for a long time.

The National Football League was dependent on anabolic steroids in the 1970’s and the Pittsburgh Steeler championship teams of that era are often referenced as the first truly organized steroid abusers.

I don’t want to get into a big debate who was using and who wasn’t because it’s my absolute belief that the vast majority of athletes used, and continue to use, performance enhancing drugs. The detection methods are far behind the masking techniques.

What I do want to talk about is both the government’s involvement in prosecuting athletes and the lies athletes tell. Not many winners in this conversation I’m afraid to say.

I have no idea why Congress is asking questions of athletes about their use of performance enhancing drugs. Well, that’s not true. I do know why. They are looking for publicity. Look at me! I took on those evil cheaters! Look, at me! Vote for me! I made football clean! Nonsense of course. The government and the legal system in general shouldn’t be involved in these prosecutions. The professional sports leagues can monitor themselves. If people don’t want to watch or pay for the games because of such performance enhancement then the league must address it. If the people keep paying then so be it. I sort of like what weight lifting has done with an Open Division where doping is accepted and a Free Division where athletes are tested.

Now, how about Roger Clemens, Floyd Landis, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and the countless horde of others dragged before Congress. Most of them choose to lie. Nice. Their parents taught them well. Great example for their children. I hope you’re proud Roger, Lance, Barry, Sammy, and rest. Of course one other choice is to not lie but not tell the truth, I have some respect for Mark McGuire.

Finally, you can decide that coming clean is the most honorable strategy. Well done Marion Jones! Of them all, I respect you. Of course, they threw her jail. Great message. When they lie – prosecute, which is all but impossible, and fail. If they tell the truth, jail! Marion Jones tells the truth and her awards are taken from her. She goes to prison. The rest of them shine their trophies, smile and lie, tell their loyal fans lies, lie to their children. It makes me sick. Not that Marion Jones is squeaky clean in all of this. But compared to Clemons, Bonds, Sosa, Armstrong and the rest I save my respect for her.

And Congress, you’re no better than the Clemens and the rest. Hang your head in shame. Go home and don’t come out again. Blah. What a disaster.

Let’s all just be adults and face reality. Clemens cheated. Armstrong cheated. McGuire cheated. They all cheated. But, if they all were cheating wasn’t the playing field level? Wasn’t Clemens a great pitcher? Bonds a great hitter? Armstrong a great bicyclist? Of course they were. They did something everyone else was doing. Their bodies may well suffer long-term consequences but they chose their fate. Can’t we all just be honest about this? Forget about putting people in jail or keeping them out of the Hall of Fame. They were all doing it!

Grow up! Fans, grow up. You’re favorite player likely cheated.

Grow up! Players, grow up. Admit what happened and move on with your life in a way you can look your children in the eye.

Grow up! Congress. Stop trying to win elections and start trying to fix this country!

I’m done now.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Casualties of the War on Drugs

Posted on by

War on DrugsYet again I read an article spelling out the complete and utter failure of the war on drugs. Sigh.

First off I’m going to start using a new phrase. “The War on Drugs” simply doesn’t compute in any reasonable way. “The Drug Cartel”. Because that’s all it is. It’s an alliance between the United States, drug manufacturing, and drug dealers legal and illegal.

Now, let’s trace the roots of this Drug Cartel. The term “War on Drugs” was coined by President Nixon in 1971 and its goal was to reduce the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs. I’ll spend one sentence on its failure. Has the production, distribution, and consumption been reduced? Done. Ok, a link with detailed explanations. Global Commission on Drug Policy. Read that and then follow the links to the various papers.

Ok, back to Nixon. While he may have coined the phrase “War on Drugs” the misguided policies in the United States date back to 1914 and the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.

Another quick detour. Did you know that in the 1890’s before all this madness began that Sears & Roebuck offered a syringe and cocaine priced at $1.50 in their catalog?

The early attacks on drug distribution were the same ones we see today. That drugs fuel violence and crime. Good news then. The Drug Cartel is succeeding in ways that Sears & Roebuck could never have dreamed possible. Unless, of course, the idea was to reduce the violence and crime associated with drug use. Then, well, fail.

The next anti-drug (pro-crime) policy was Prohibition enacted in 1920. Again, easy to see the results.

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics, precursor to the Drug Enforcement Administration was created in 1930. Guess who expanded it greatly by establishing the DEA? President Nixon in 1973.

Next came the ridiculous Marijuana Transfer Tax Act in 1937. This act placed a tax on cannabis and was eventually replaced in 1969 with something far worse, The Controlled Substances Act.

But, let’s get back to the DEA. In 2010 there operating budget was over one billion dollars. A healthy sum. Guess what percentage of that was dedicated to reducing demands for drugs as opposed to prosecuting and catching offenders? .28%. So, 99.72% of the budget of the DEA was used to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States through interdiction in foreign countries and here. The numbers in 2005 suggest that the DEA seized about 2 billion worth of drugs and drug related assets of which about half a billion was actual drugs. The total amount of drugs sold in the US that year is estimated at 64 billion. Let’s do the math … .78% of all drugs were prevented. Really? .78%? In what world is that worthwhile?

Meanwhile there are any number of accusations that the United States works with drug providing nations to bring the material to the country. I’m willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt that they are simply doing this in order to catch drug dealers. But, they aren’t stopping the flow by any appreciable amount and they are actually contributing to it! This is insane.

Meanwhile the number of American citizens incarcerated has increased hugely since the Drug Cartel began. It was less than .2% of the population at the onset of the Drug Cartel and is now over .8%.

I’m now tired of finding reasons why the Drug Cartel is madness. I’m not out of reasons, I could go on .. and on … and on, but I’m just tired and discouraged.

It’s up to you, people of the United States. Write your Congressmen, ask them politely (don’t yell and scream like a five-year old who didn’t get his cookies) in Town Hall meetings. We must stop this insanity. Legalize drugs. Disband the DEA.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Video and the Police Officer

Posted on by

Taking PicturesThere was an interesting article in the news the other day about police arresting people recording video of the officers in their regular duties. It seems to be making a big splash and the alarmist headline naturally drives people to the story.

While reading the comments on the article it struck me that, as usual, most of the commenters failed to read the article completely if at all. It’s one of those stories that is going to provoke a strong reaction from both sides of the political spectrum and likely eventually distill down to a game of name-calling with both sides blaming the other.

I find two things interesting about the article and the reaction to it.

Firstly, anyone who cared to read the item all the way through had to note that police officers and politicians were aware of the issue and passing laws and training officers in the appropriate way to handle the situation. This is a good thing! With new recording technology ubiquitously available not only in person but remotely there are clearly going to be more people recording public activity. So, as the police become accustomed to this it will expose officers who flaunt the law which in turn emboldens all the great officers out there who are already doing a fantastic job without prompting. I talked about the how letting people get away with bad deeds hurts everyone in this post. The idea is that good people are discouraged when bad people are allowed to go about their business.

The second thing that struck me was that people in total agreement about how police should behave towards law-abiding citizens recording their activity were in complete and total disagreement about the cause of the problem. The two camps, not surprisingly, were political opposites, Republicans and Democrats. I don’t have to tell you who each blamed for the problem. What distressed me is that both sides were in such lock-step agreement about the problem yet made no effort to join forces and find a solution.

I think that is endemic of the political situation in the U.S. I’m of the opinion that people really aren’t that far apart ideologically and that if they would focus on solving problems rather than blaming each other amazing things could happen. I suppose I’m a dreamer but I’ll continue to dream … and blog.

Who’s with me?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
The Hammer of Fire New Release!

The Art of a Molotov Cocktail

Posted on by

Accused TerroristsThere is a big news story hitting today about three anarchists and their alleged plans to attack President’s Obama’s office among other targets. It’s way to early to draw any conclusion but I find myself quickly on the skeptical side of this one. I hope that I’m wrong and that the timely police action saved lives.

The thing about the case that struck me from the very first news stories was the mention of Molotov Cocktail making machinery. Machinery? Really? Don’t you just sort of need a jug of alcohol, some rags, and a lighter?

The criminals also reportedly had a device that could fire mortars, swords, “ninja-like” throwing stars, and trench knives (called brass-knuckle knives in the articles). Assuming the device that could fire mortars was a spud gun the other weapons are actually fairly reminiscent of what my fellow Dungeon and Dragon/Renaissance Fair going friends have laying about their homes.

I’m certainly not saying the alleged criminals are innocent but I’ll continue to follow the case with interest to see what further evidence arises. Others who were not eventually charged were held for 18 hours and some apparently not allowed to use restrooms and verbally abused by the police officers. Now, it is legal to hold someone for various amounts of time, depending on the state, without charge. A lot of this falls under the U.S Constitution Habeas Corpus in Article 1, Section 9 which was not enacted for states until Reconstruction after the Civil War.

However, I do have a problem with people not being allowed to go to the bathroom and police officers being disrespectful to those detained who are not otherwise abusing the officers in question. Again, we don’t know what those others were saying to the officers so it’s impossible to come to any conclusions at this stage of events.

In any case, it is very early in the proceedings but the case caught my eye for a number of reasons. Let me know what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Same-sex Marriage

Posted on by

MarriageI’ve been leading up to this with my History of Marriage and Keep Government out of Marriage columns and now I’m finally going to take the plunge and weigh in on the highly charged issue of same-sex marriage. Anyone who regularly reads my blog knows my Libertarian tendencies and it will come as no surprise that I don’t think the government; federal, state or local, should have more than a minimal opinion on marriage one way or the other.

Still, government cannot allow anyone to marry because there are legal situations that must be addressed. Certainly everyone acknowledges that children must be protected from ill-intentioned adults. Thus we don’t want twelve-year olds being duped into a disadvantageous marriage. There are mentally ill people who can likewise be fooled for a variety of reasons and I do see a need to protect such groups.

The main arguments against same-sex marriage seem to fall into three categories; Slippery slope, marriage as an institution, and religion. I’ll examine each one.

I’ve never been a big fan of slippery slope arguments. The idea is that to allow same-sex marriage is to open the gates to marriage of brothers to sisters and people to animals. I just don’t see it. Firstly, animals have protection in place already that supposedly prevents their abuse although much goes on anyway. As to incest I’m not really sure I care if first cousins get married and it’s certainly legal in a number of states already. These sorts of laws vary from state to state in any case but I don’t see it changing much if same-sex marriages are allowed.

The institution of marriage is the main argument you hear against same-sex marriage and I sort of see a point here. Marriage is ingrained into society and largely a convention for procreation. People get married to have children. With fewer people having children and marriage rates in general decline I’m just not convinced that allowing same-sex couples to marry is going to hurt an already fading institution. But, if this is the main issue for people it seems relatively simple to allow some sort of civil contract that conveys the legal benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. I completely understand that a spouse has rights to make decisions for a medically impaired partner and why same-sex couples would want similar rights. There are a number of issues of this nature that should be addressed. I would have no problem with granting some sort of civil contract that gave the benefits of marriage in this regard but was called something else.

Finally, there are religious arguments and I think these are the most reasonable. I’m sure that surprises people as I’m an Atheist. However, the Constitution of the United States guarantees religious freedom. Marriage has become, like it or not, a religious institution. While Polygyny remains quite common around the world there is little historical evidence for religiously sanctioned same-sex marriage anywhere. I’m not convinced that the federal government is correct to force a particular state to allow same-sex marriage or that even state government should dictate to each county. We have laws that prevent the purchase of alcohol in counties and I don’t really see why a particular county or state shouldn’t ban same-sex marriage because it is against the will of the majority. No state is required to recognize a marriage created in another state although largely they do. The Constitution is silent on the subject of marriage of any kind and should, as far as I’m concerned, remain so.

My conclusion is that if a state or county wants to ban same-sex marriage then it’s within their domain just as it is within their domain to refrain from placing such a ban. If polling is to be trusted this entire issue will fade away into nothingness within one generation as the vast majority of young people seem to not much care if same-sex marriage is legal.

Certainly we already see some states banning and others allowing and this is a good thing. This is one of the founding principles of the United States. Where the Constitution is silent the power belongs to the State and to the People.

Tell me what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Marriage and Government

Posted on by

MarriageAs a moderate Libertarian I find the government’s role in marriage to be a big problem. It is social engineering of the most egregious kind. Sadly, the social engineering is largely promoted by Republicans who claim they hate this sort of thing. Marriage is supposedly “good” for society and thus the government feels the need to pass laws that promote it. With these laws in place it becomes financially, socially, and legally worthwhile to be married rather than to be single.

These legalities are one of the main reasons homosexuals desire the status of marriage in the first place. If the government got out of the marriage business things would improve on a number of fronts. First I’d like to list the ways that people are encouraged to get married rather than stay single.

What are the benefits of being married? Plenty. This article goes into many of them but I’ll try to summarize.

Military spouses get employment benefits, per diem moving expenses, immigration benefits, and property tax relief.

All spouses get increased government benefits from a variety of sources including Medicaid and tax relief from a variety of items including income tax. Spouses get bankruptcy filing benefits, rights to a deceased spouse’s social security, a $100,000 one time payment for spouse killed in line of duty.

Spouses gain rights over children that non-spouses do not have, they get access to hospitals for visiting rights and important medical decisions, alimony, domestic violence intervention, wrongful death claims, adoption benefits, funeral and bereavement leave. I could go on and on here but I think I’ve made my point. The government and the law make it highly beneficial to be married rather than to just shack up.

Another problem is that a marriage isn’t considered legal unless proper protocols are established and certain groups of people are prevented from marrying. I’m not just talking about homosexuals here. Relatives face severe restrictions. Just as an example it is a criminal offense for first cousins to marry in Texas while it is perfectly legal right next door in New Mexico. In England you can’t marry your mother-in-law until your spouse is dead. And of course there are restrictions on the age of an individual who can marry.

I think it would be best if most or all of these laws benefiting a spouse were repealed and if marriage could simply return to a contract between individuals, as it was for most of history, without needing government or clergy approval. Once the majority of benefits for getting married are repealed I think we would see an increase in marriage of people who were more certain of the institution and a decrease in divorce, domestic abuse, and other issues. With such tangible benefits to getting married there is a huge impetus to get married even if the parties are uncertain if this is the best course of action.

Once the government gets out of promoting marriage then it seems to me that people who otherwise would get married when they are unready for such a committment would not get married. Of course, the argument goes that people who don’t marry but live together in essentially a married state without the license are more likely to split. There has always been strong social stigma against a divorced woman dating to ancient times as I discussed yesterday but the emancipation of women through birth control, education, and equal opportunity has really changed the dynamic. I don’t want my discussion to go too far astray here so I’ll come to a quick conclusion.

If government stops trying to promote marriage and if we can grant the same legal benefits to people who engage in some sort of simple marriage contract then I think the institution of marriage will flourish rather than head down its current path where approximately 40% to 60% of new marriages end in divorce. I’m not saying marriage rates will go up, they were around 80% of the population in the 1960’s compared to 45% now but I am suggesting that if we stop trying to socially engineer marriage that the only people who will get married are those who really want it. That has to be good for children, families, spouses, and basically, everyone.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

The History of Marriage

Posted on by

MarriageMarriage is in the news a bit lately and I’m going to end my blog vacation with a few posts that I hope will clear up the debate for those of you willing to look at it from a critical perspective. I’m going to start with the origins, history, and general purpose of marriage.

A good start is this article on Wikipedia but I’ll try to summarize.

Marriage has been around for as long as recorded history and certainly seems to date from a time before that. The largest single factor in the concept seems to be that single, sexually active women wreak havoc on society. Sorry ladies. Of course, it’s not really the single, sexually active women wreaking all that havoc; it’s the testosterone fueled monkey-men going bat poop crazy for all those single, sexually active women that causes the trouble. The competition this engenders often turns violent, thus marriage.

There are three main types of marriage throughout history; a single man and a single woman called monogamy, a single man and multiple women called Polygyny, and a single woman and multiple men called Polyandry.

Ancient Israel was a Polygynous society and there are a number of rules set forth in something called the Covenant Code as to how a man is supposed to treat his multiple wives particularly in regard to not mistreating older wives when newer, presumably younger, wives are added. Adultery by a wife, as in most ancient cultures, was a capital punishment.

In Greece and Rome marriage was more of a mutual agreement between two parties rather than a religious or civic ceremony. It wasn’t until around the 300 CE that the Christian clergy took a stronger interest in the concept as an event before god rather than a simple mutual agreement. The state remained uninvolved until around 1545 with the church recording marriages for those who desired records and the state being completely removed from the issue. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1563 that a marriage was not considered legal unless a priest had presided at the event.

In much of Asia and the Middle East marriage was largely an arranged event with Polygyny remaining the most common form until around the 20th century. In many countries it is still perfectly legal to have more than a single wife and the Mormon religion practiced polygyny, which they called Celestial Marriage, from 1830 until 1890. The banning came after a long battle with the U.S. Government which tried to eradicate the practice. When Utah next applied for statehood, in 1896, it was granted.

Biblically marriage is referenced in the Old Testament with Polygyny being the most common form mentioned. Jesus mentions marriage explicitly on several occasions referencing a man and a woman along with monogamy.

In the New Testament there are some restrictions against Polygyny in that particular people; Bishops, Deacons, and Elders must have only one wife. Other people are not instructed as to how many wives they may have and monogamy is never explicitly mentioned.

Biblically marriage seems to be promoted as a way to avoid the sin of sexual congress in an unmarried state. If you can’t maintain celibacy then marriage is required seems to be the message most often mentioned.

Anyway, that’s a quick history of marriage. Tomorrow I’m going to look at marriage from a Libertarian point of view and what I think would be an ideal arrangement.

Tell me what you think.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Teachers as Bullies

Posted on by

BullyThere was a heartbreaking story on Yahoo recently about teachers  as bullies. I don’t want to spend time talking about how awful the teachers are and express my moral outrage because it’s going to be difficult to find anyone who disagrees. Never accuse me of taking the easy path! What I do want to talk about is how it happens that people are hired for certain jobs.

This one is going to be difficult for my audience to swallow but sometimes people take jobs because it gives them a chance to act out on their sadistic nature. We like to think that people pick a career they enjoy but there are a number of self-loathing people out there who enjoy hurting others, this is how we get teachers as bullies. I know it seems strange to call them self-loathing but generally people who hate themselves are the ones who are most sadistic to others. An interesting idea but a topic for another day.

What I want to explore today is how to avoid getting sadists in positions where they can take advantage of their desire to hurt other people. I think most teachers, police officers, soldiers, boy scout leaders, animal husbandry employees, and others who work at jobs where there is power over other people or animals are in it because they want to help. But, there is a sizeable minority who take jobs like that simply to hurt others, to be teachers as bullies.

There are two hugely important factors in preventing sadists from getting into positions like this. The most important is management oversight. Anyone who manages positions like that needs to be constantly vigilant that people they hire might be sadistic. The second thing that must be done is careful evaluation of people who apply for such jobs. The police force and the army are well aware that sadists apply and screen for them. Finally, and this is an absolute must, people who use their position of power to abuse other people must be immediately punished or removed. If this behavior is allowed then it simply emboldens sadists and causes good people to leave.

This is something that seemed to be strategy of the George W. Bush administration. Abu Graib, Pat Tillman, Brownie. The first instinct was to cover-up the wrong-doing because it embarrassed the people in power. The cover-up just emboldens sadists to be more brazen in their actions and inhibits good people.

I have absolutely no doubt the teachers in the case that I mentioned at the top of this article were at some point reported by teachers whose sense of decency and love of children motivated them into action. I’m just as certain no action or minimal action was taken to avoid scandal and embarrassment. Thus good people were driven away and sadists thrived.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing.

Thank you Edmund Burke. Of course, he never said it. What he did say was this:

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

So, the next time you encounter sadistic behavior, even in mild form, step up and take action. Particularly if you are a supervisor. It’s hard to confront people sometimes but the consequences of allowing such behavior are too terrible to tolerate.

Tell me what you think.

Tom Liberman

Trayvon Martin Case

Posted on by

White NoiseIn my quest for sensational stories that will generate thousands of blog hits which in turn will drive sales of my novels I now step into the arena of the Trayvon Martin death. Here is my take on it.

The police didn’t investigate diligently enough, community uproar ensued, case now being pursued. So, anyway, that’s done.

Seriously, that’s it. Who disagrees? No one. Yet the madness continues on the front page of every newspaper and in the outraged mouths of politicians, pundits, internet flame mongers, crack whores, meth heads, six legged calfs, a rock sitting by the Current River, and this disgusted Libertarian blogger.

Do we have nothing better to discuss? Is yelling nonsense at one another the new America’s Sport? What’s the story here? Everyone agrees. If, down the road, the police investigation is shoddy then further outrage can ensue. I’m guessing they are going to be very thorough this time. Just my wild take on it.

Now, let’s get onto what’s really happening here. I’m sure this will come as a surprise to you jaded listeners but there are some alternative agendas out there that have nothing to do with the parties involved in the shooting. Shocking, no?

Media outlets want to sell advertising, politicians want votes, flamers want to flame, blacks want a cause, whites want a cause, half-Peruvian want a cause, talking heads want to foam at the mouth in indignation, I want to vomit.

Here’s the lesson. Listen to the people with an agenda if you must but find out what their agenda is and take it into account. And, if you want to view some interesting media look at this, or this, or this, or this. Just maybe, if you, the public, the one in charge, clicks articles like that then the media outlets might focus on them, maybe the pundits would talk about them, maybe the politicians would think about them, maybe … oh forget it … someone won the lottery!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Government Week – Theocracy

Posted on by

GovernmentToday’s topic in government week is Theocracy. It is rule by religion or as generally defined: Theocracy is a form of government in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion.

The most common place we see this form of government today is in Islamic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is generally totalitarian in nature in that religion often has little room for those who disagree. This hasn’t historically been true completely as some theocratic states in the past have allowed those of different religions to flourish. More normally other religions are persecuted under this form of government. In the United States Mormon’s founded the State of Deseret but this was disbanded before they became a state.

The Founding Fathers explicitly forbid this form of government in the United States.

Theocracy is different from a state sponsored religion wherein the government officially endorses one religion or another but has laws separate from it. In a theocracy the state is considered to be run by appointees of god with rules handed down by god. This is probably the most troubling aspect of a theocratic state. If the laws are handed down by god they must be interpreted as infallible. Thus there is no mechanism for correction.

One of the concerns of Christians in the western world is the institution of Sharia Law in their countries by burgeoning muslim populations. Interestingly, much like christian law if taken from, say, the Ten Commandments much of this the antithesis of the freedom and individual responsibility that Libertarian’s like myself advance.

For example, both have laws about tithing or alms which is giving money to the religious leaders but would come under the concept of illegal taxation from a Libertarian point of view. Both have laws against adultery which again would be opposed by a Libertarian who believes the state should have no say in such matters. Both have laws against homosexuality and once again Libertarians argue the state does not belong in such matters. Both generally forbid people from other religions to hold important offices within the state.

Penalties doled out in theocracy tend to be extreme. In most religious states the penalty for adultery is stoning.

I could go on here but I think it’s relatively clear to most people that the rule of law is not handed down by god. For my Christian readers I highly suggest a full reading of the ten commandments. I think you will be surprised at the text. Anyone who told you they are basis for law in the U.S. is not being honest.

Theocratic rule is a constant danger in that people who live by Faith Based Thinking standards are not constrained by logic, by evidence, by common sense. They know they are right without examination simply because they believe. This absence of critical thinking necessarily leads to an oppressive, freedomless state as we see in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. People in such countries yearn for their freedom and in places like Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia we see an Arab Spring wherein the population rises up against oppressive rule. The danger, of course, is that one oppressive regime will be replaced by a theocracy that is equal or worse in their fear of freedom.

Thanks for reading and share away!

[polldaddy poll=6065412]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Government Week – Plutocracy

Posted on by

GovernmentMost of you have probably never heard of this form of government and yet I’d be willing to wager that you’ve either complained about how the United States is becoming more like this or at least argued against someone who made that claim. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy.

The ancient Roman Republic which was in some ways the model of the modern U.S. was a Plutocracy as the ruling Senate was largely made up of wealthy people who were the only ones eligible for the position. In the U.S. this is not true and the Founding Fathers saw the danger in such a system creating our current bicameral chambers in which the House of Representatives is elected by direct vote. The Senate of the U.S. was originally an appointed position but that has changed. See my blog on this subject for further information. To be fair the original system only allowed land owning white males to vote which was essentially rule by the upper class.

In the U.S. the wealthy have always been allowed raise money and support particular candidates but bribery itself is illegal. However, in recent years and particularly thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision that money is now flowing in ever greater quantities to candidates.

My father told me years ago that it shouldn’t be illegal to give to one candidate in a campaign but when you give to both sides it is nothing other than bribery. My father tends towards the hyperbole in these situation but I must admit that I agree with him on this one. The other issue is that groups of people, be they unions, Political Action Committees, corporate entities, or some other assembly are now allowed to raise money and donate it to a campaign of their particular interest. The upshot of this is that a group can target a campaign where one candidate is vulnerable.

For example, I can start a PAC, raise money from donations from all over the world, and then put that money into a campaign in Idaho. I’m from Missouri and have no representative stake in an election in Idaho. This influx of money to support a particular candidate occurs even before the general election with the primaries in which the candidate from one of the two major parties must bow before the powers of that party in order to get the funds necessary to be elected. Elected officials who do not vote as ordered find themselves without funds in the next election cycle.

This has a chilling effect on that candidate’s votes once elected. They are financially and emotionally obligated to the people who paid for their election. Bribery, in short.

This isn’t exactly new and prior to the 17th Amendment Senators were so obligated to the state legislatures rather than to moneyed influences.

In this series so far I’ve mainly just described government types without commenting particularly but I’ll break that trend today to offer what I consider to be some reasonable solutions to the untoward influence money is bringing to campaigns. I think that politicians who are honorable and want to make their district, country and world a better place would welcome the removal of moneyed influence so they can simply vote their ideological position.

I’m of the opinion that individuals should be allowed to contribute any amount desired to a campaign in which they have a representative interest. I’m from District 3 in Missouri so I can donate to that campaign for the House of Representatives, to a Senator from my state’s campaign or to a presidential candidate. I should not be able to donate to any other campaign or to both candidates in any race. Likewise no group of people should be allowed to collect money to donate to any campaign. If someone wants to give three million dollars to a candidate then so be it. But groups are out and donations to a particular party’s “war chest” are forbidden.

Also, I think all election cycles should be limited in time. The House of Representatives get thirty days to run their primary and the same for the general campaign. The Senate should revert back to state legislature appointment although if not limit them to forty-five days. The presidential campaign should be a three month primary season and a three month general election. No campaigning of any kind should be allowed otherwise.

It’s a fairly extreme solution and might face some constitutional questions. It does give some advantage to incumbents whose names are already known but they have an advantage under any system.

Tell me what you think in the comments below and share away!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist