Category Archives: Law

Closing Liquor Stores in Whiteclay to Solve Alcoholism

Posted on by

Badlands_in_South_DakotaI just read a terrible story about a little town in Nebraska that serves one purpose. It supplies alcohol to Native Americans living just across the border in South Dakota at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Whiteclay has a population of 14 and four liquor stores and the stores sell about 13,000 cans of beer a day. These sales result in a contribution of nearly half a million dollars to the state coffers of Nebraska. This does not include revenue from the thousands of DUI tickets given to drivers leaving the town.

At least some of the beer is sold to bootleggers who take it directly onto the reservation and sell it there at an inflated price. This because alcohol is illegal to sell on the reservation.

Pine Ridge is, by any reasonable judgment, a heartbreaking tragedy. Unemployment is around 80%. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is rampant. Almost half the residents live in poverty. The people have the shortest life expectancy in the western hemisphere.

Many people want to close the liquor stores in Whiteclay to alleviate some of the terrible problems on the reservation.

And thus I am triggered. I could spend time talking about how adults must be allowed to make their own decisions. I could talk about how the residents of the reservation will just drive to the next town to get liquor if Whiteclay is shut down. I might point out the obvious fact that bootleggers will simply bring in increased amounts of alcohol and increase their prices.

Instead I simply explain the root of the problem. Alcohol sales are illegal on the reservation. This was done to combat alcoholism among Native Americans. It has not only failed to solve the problem but created a host of ancillary issues. Drunk driving, public intoxication in Whiteclay, criminal activity in the form of bootleggers, the eyesore of Whiteclay itself.

All of these problems go away if liquor sales are allowed on the reservation. Not only that but the stores would employ people. They would generate profits and tax revenue for the Native Americans to use to help alcoholics.

The problem that won’t go away is alcoholism among residents. That’s true. I freely admit it. That is a bigger task beyond the scope of my article today. It is a task worth taking on. People’s lives are at stake. But not for me, not today at least.

My point today is simple. A law was passed in order to prevent the residents of Pine Ridge from having easy access to alcohol. It has failed utterly and created a host of other problems. A lesson to be learned.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
April 2017 Release: For the Gray

Anita Krajnc and Giving Water to Pigs

Posted on by

anita-krajnc-water-pigsThere’s an interesting case about to be adjudicated in Ontario, Canada in which a woman named Anita Krajnc poured water into a truck full of pigs heading to slaughter from Fearmans Pork. She is only charged with a misdemeanor charge of mischief and the case is not exactly earth shattering but it demonstrates a fundamental problem, as I see it, with our general society these days.

What we have is two groups who seem to be, at a cursory glance, at complete and total opposite ends of a spectrum. Krajnc belongs to a group called Toronto Pig Save and Fearmans Pork makes a living off raising and slaughtering pigs.

I don’t think I need to go into details as to why these two groups are facing off in court. Nor do I want to spend time talking about the merits of the case against Krajnc. I won’t extoll on the virtues of the cause nor talk about the value of bringing the pigs to slaughter or even of a free market and supply side economics. All of those things are worth discussing but not by me and not today.

What do I want to talk about? Good question.

What I want to talk about is how people on opposite sides of the spectrum all too often, and as a first response, resort to antagonistic behavior when there is actually common ground upon which they could join.

Common ground? Between Pig Save activists and Fearmans Pork? Yes, indeed. There is far more common ground on a lot of issues than people realize.

Krajnc would like to give the pigs some water while they are in the truck heading to slaughter. That’s a nice sentiment to be honest. Animals heading to slaughter are sometimes not properly cared for near the end of their life because to feed and water them at such a late stage is an expense. It’s cheaper not to do so.

What Krajnc did was climb on the truck and pour water from a bottle onto the pigs. The truck driver and pig owners were naturally worried that something more nefarious is going on and want to protect their property.

A better choice from my perspective would be Toronto Pig Save simply asking Fearmans Pork if they could pay for the expense of giving the pigs one last drink of water before heading to slaughter. When Fearmans Pork found out what Krajnc was up to they could have offered some sort of system by which she was allowed to water the pigs more effectively.

Would this have solved the issue from Toronto Pig Save’s perspective? No, naturally not. They don’t want pigs going to slaughter at all, but at least they could have given the animals some water before the inevitable. Can Fearmans Pork simply have such activists arrested for such behavior? Yes, of course, and they did. But couldn’t they also have suggested a system by which the pigs did get a last drink of water at the expense of Toronto Pig Save?

No solution is going to make everyone happy but it seems to me that we can get more accomplished if we work together, even with those who are apparently on the opposite side of an issue.

What if abortion foes and supporters worked together, spent their time and money, on preventing unwanted pregnancies? What if Animal Activists and Factory Farm owners worked together to improve the life and health of the animals?

How much time, passion, and money is spent on activities that don’t do anything to make the problem better, but simply caress the egos of the parties on both sides. “We’ll put those animal nutcases in prison!” “We’ll show the world the horror of factory farms!”

The comment sections of every story are filled with people who live in this black and white world. My way or no way at all.

I’ll end my post in the same way President Trump often does. However, unlike him; I don’t mean it as in pathetic. I mean it as so much wasted energy, effort, time, and money.

Sad.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
April 2017 Release: For the Gray

 

Jeff Sessions Believes Violence Follows Marijuana Sales Because of Unpaid Debt

Posted on by

war-on-drugs“You can’t sue somebody for a drug debt. The only way to get your money is through strong-arm tactics, and violence tends to follow that.”

That is the quote from the Attorney General of the United States in regards to marijuana legalization. What else is there to say? How stupid is he? Or does he just think those who support him are stupid?

Is it possible he doesn’t realize that in states where marijuana is legal that you can sue for debt and thus violence is completely unnecessary? Is it possible that he doesn’t realize the vast majority of violence surrounding the drug trade is caused by interdiction?

Police officers die. Innocents die. Drug dealers die. Drug users die. The violence is almost completely centered on the enforcement of drug laws. If drugs were legal there would not be anywhere near the violence. Do we see violence around prescription drug debt? No? Gosh, a shocker there.

Of course if drugs were legal the police forces of the United States wouldn’t have nearly as much to do. Nearly as much to spend on neat equipment. Not nearly as many citizens to bully and attack. Of course, on the plus side, they would also be much safer. They could focus their energies on non-drug crime and helping the citizens of their communities rather than financing their entire department off the misery of said citizens.

If drugs were legal the prisons would lose most of their inhabitants. That’s a good thing? Right? Well good for everyone except the prison system which enriches itself on putting citizens in jail.

What would the DEA do if drugs were legal? Well, just about nothing. How much money would that save? But we don’t want that, we want to employ people.

I’ve ranted enough. I can’t take any more.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
April 2017 Release: For the Gray

In some Countries a Speeding Ticket for a Sports Star is a Big Deal

Posted on by

moana-hopeI’m fairly certain that most of my readers are aware that I love sports. I fell in love with Australian Rules football a few years back when it was broadcast on ESPN3. I still follow the sport and something happened this weekend that makes me think. Two players in the game, one a man and one a woman, were caught speeding.

If you say big deal then it’s likely you are much like me and completely inured to sports stars behaving badly here in the United States. In Australia it’s a big story. Both players are facing serious trouble and potential suspensions. The teams are issuing strong words about expecting better from their players, how they take road safety quite seriously.

There is all sorts of chatter on the Collingwood Facebook page about the incident.

It’s not easy to compare a country with a smaller population like Australia to a large one like the United States where we have far more sports stars in a wider variety of sports. The reaction in Australia to the incident, which would probably not even rise to the level of an actual news story in the United States, does raise an interesting question.

Do Australians hold athletes to a higher standard than we do here in the United States?

If so, why?

I certainly think the population of the two nations has something to do with it but perhaps there are cultural differences to account for as well. In Australia police are given wide latitude in interdictions on traffic violations. In Australia the police can stop you while driving at any time for no reason and check for intoxication or pretty much anything else, they have no Fourth Amendment restrictions.

Is this good? Bad? Does it effect how things like speeding are viewed by the general populace?

I’m not really sure I have any world altering conclusion here but I do find the entire thing quite interesting.

I’m a big fan of the Fourth Amendment. I think allow government officials to stop people for no reason is an extremely bad idea. I’m also not a huge fan of vilifying people for relatively minor transgressions. Who among us hasn’t driven faster than the speed limit?

What do you think? Is the culture for sports stars too forgiving in the United States? Too harsh in Australia? Somewhere in between?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
April 2017 Release: For the Gray

I’ll Use Our Second Amendment Rights to Defend our First Amendment Rights

Posted on by

Constitution of United StatesCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I want to be as clear as possible about the First Amendment.

The freedom of media to report as they will without fear of retribution from the government is vital to the survival of this great nation and of This Great Experiment. The media must be allowed to tell the story; the true story, the false story, the agenda driven story twisted with nuance, or the apolitical story. It is necessary. It is my freedom.

If you are under the impression those telling stories you don’t like must be arrested, repressed, intimidated, fined, sued, or otherwise cowed from doing their job; know that I will defend them. If necessary I’ll use another right guaranteed to me to do so.

I will accept the consequences of those action.

Just so you know where I stand if you want to discuss Freedom of the Press in my presence.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
April 2017 Release: For the Gray

Ticketed for Leaving Car Running in Driveway

Posted on by

ticket-taylorThere’s an interesting story making the news regarding a fellow named Nick Taylor or Taylor Trupiano (depending on which article you read) who was ticketed in Roseville, Michigan because he left his car running and unattended in the driveway of his girlfriend’s home.

The reason for the law, according to Roseville Police Chief James Berlin, is that thieves sometimes steal cars that are left in this state, usually during winter months. Cars thus stolen must be dealt with by law enforcement officials. The police must investigate the crime and track down the criminal and might even have to engage in high-speed chases. The investigation costs money and the chases are dangerous to bystanders. Chief Berlin is unabashedly a supporter of such laws.

You all know me by now. I’m a Libertarian. I think the law is ludicrous but let’s take some time to examine why.

Let us take Chief Berlin’s assertion at face value. There are cars stolen in this manner. Investigating such events does cost money. A high-speed chase might result.

Let’s also take a look at some Libertarian points of view on the subject. Leaving a running car in your driveway hurts no one directly. It is a convenience in cold weather. It is your car. It is private property.

Now I want to examine Chief Berlin’s arguments

His first argument is largely that the law is designed to protect people from themselves. You might get your car stolen if you act in a careless fashion. I don’t think the state should be protecting us from our own stupidity. If we are stupid and do stupid things that is our business. Would we want police officers to fine someone wearing a nice watch in a bad part of town? The crime is committed by the thief, even if we act irresponsibly and put ourselves in dangerous situations. That’s our business, not the state’s business.

His second argument is that it costs money for the police to investigate crime. Yes. That’s true. That’s their job. People pay taxes to support the police force in doing this job. We should not be taxing through citation. This problem is largely created by municipalities that fail to fully fund their police force and use it as a cash cow to rake in revenue for City Hall. Which is, of course, the real reason behind the ordinance, not that Chief Berlin or the Mayor of Roseville would ever admit as much. Fully fund the police force. If crimes occur they will attempt to solve them. I certainly wouldn’t object to community outreach to explain not to leave your car unattended because it invites thieves.

His final argument is that high-speed chases endanger the public. He’s right. They do. And police should not engage in such chases for the safety of the citizens of the town and the officers themselves. Chases make sense when the criminal is violent and dangerous but do not make any sense for a car thief. Yes, the thief might get away. That’s true. But also: Yes, innocent people and officers themselves die in such chases. They aren’t worth it.

There are a lot of factors that go into such ordinances as we see in Roseville but as a Libertarian I cannot countenance them. Bad laws make people hate police officers. And that’s something law enforcement agencies would do well to consider.

When police work with the community both are served.

Should warming up the car unattended be a crime?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Pharmaceutical Companies and Doctors make Millions for doing what would put you in Jail

Posted on by

war-on-drugsIf you fear that I’ll grow tired of railing against the failed and incredibly destructive War on Drugs then you can rest easy. The War on Drugs has been a total disaster for the vast majority of people in the world and I’m going to tell you why yet again. I’ll also use a news story that is in all the headlines to illustrate my point.

The War on Drugs was designed to stop illegal drug use and make illegal drugs harder to get. From a purely practical perspective it has failed completely. More people use drugs than ever before and they are more readily available than ever before despite flashy news stories about huge drug busts.

Our government has locked up huge numbers of adults for voluntarily purchasing drugs or selling drugs to an eager and willing market. Meanwhile doctors and pharmaceutical companies are doing exactly the same thing and making millions, nah, billions of dollars. More people die overdosing prescriptions drugs than illegal drugs.

Our police officers have been turned from heroes of the community into jackbooted thugs because of The War on Drugs. They tear families apart and terrorize the citizens of their communities. They degrade themselves. They subject themselves to horrible dangers and not infrequently die or suffer terrible injuries that need never have happened. The War on Drugs has not only torn apart the community but the entire police force. The police are forced by City Hall to rely on seized money to fund themselves. This too is a product of the War on Drugs. Police officers no longer say they “Protect and Serve” but merely they “Uphold the Law”. That’s bad for the community and horrible for the officers.

I speak out against the War on Drugs on the behalf of officers. If only they could go back to Protecting and Serving. They would be all the better and so would we.

And while all this horror is going on the doctors and pharmaceutical companies get rich. Rich! Stinking rich. Doing what? Selling drugs that are exactly the same chemically as those arbitrarily made illegal and sold at a huge markup to willing and eager customers. I want law enforcement officers to think about that. You police officers out there who are inclined to get angry at me for my rantings against the War on Drugs. Think about that. The government is using you to suppress competition for doctors and pharmaceutical companies from cheap alternatives to their cash cows. And it’s killing you. Killing your friends. Killing them!

While you’re risking your life to increase the profit of a pharmaceutical company the executives are dining at fancy restaurants and laughing at you. Ask yourself, brave and dedicated officers, why aren’t you busting doctors for selling far more of the exact same drug than any street dealer you will ever encounter? Why are you risking your life for them? Because only when we the people, and that includes you officers, decide that enough is enough will it stop.

We must end the War on Drugs. What an adult does with her or his body is up to them. Perhaps it is detrimental. Perhaps it is stupid. Perhaps it is deadly. But it is their decision.

There is no justification for what is happening and this story illustrates the point yet again.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Sotomayor and Scalia Misleading Headline

Posted on by

supreme-court-justicesAh, one has to love those misleading headlines. This one involves Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and former Justice Antonin Scalia who passed away early in 2016.

The headline intimates that Sotomayor was so angry at Scalia that she wanted to hit him with a baseball bat. Those are the words she uses but the full quote gives a very different impression.

Here it is: I’ve told people there are things he said on the bench when if I had a baseball bat, I might have used it, but when you work so intimately with people, you get to know the really personal good side of them.

Essentially she is saying despite differences they grew to respect and like each other. Or at least she him although I suspect the feeling was mutual. Certainly the friendship between Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was well documented. They might disagree, vehemently, on a position but they didn’t let that get in the way of their personal relationships.

Reading the comments there are two themes. One that someone should take a baseball bat to Sotomayor. The other that Sotmayor should have actually taken the bat to Scalia. Both are commentaries about We the People. How we handle disagreement. It’s a shame so few of us can behave like Sotomayor, Scalia, Bader Ginsburg and their colleagues.

This willingness to take political and ideological differences into a deeply personal and hate fueled realm does not bode well for the future of the Grand Experiment.

We are, the all of us, in this together. So few seem to recognize it anymore.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

When Prisoners Work should they be Paid?

Posted on by
prisoners-working-slave-labor

I just read an interesting story from the Guardian which brings up memories of movies like The Shawshank Redemption and Cool Hand Luke.

What is happening and happened in the past is prisoners in the penal system do work but are paid either nothing for this work or a few pennies an hour. We’re all aware the United States incarcerates far more of its population than any other country in the world. That we largely use private contractors to house these prisoners. These private contractors get your tax dollars to run the prisons and operate on a profit system. They want more prisoners because that accrues more tax dollars into their pockets.

Harm to Contractors

The problem here is they are using prisoners to do the work in the prisons and additional work outside the prison. This avoids payment to contractors who would otherwise be doing the work in the system. Generating further profits for work done outside the system.

Questions

Q1: Is it right to use prisoners as essentially slave labor because they were convicted of a crime?

A1: If you want prisoners to work then pay them a fair wage for their work. That’s capitalism. Certainly doing so would drive up the cost of incarcerating people but I think the reasons I’m going to enumerate in answering the other questions fully justifies such an expense.

Q2: Is it right to pay private prison contractors money for things like laundry service when the prisoners are providing it essentially for free?

A2: I’m absolutely in disagreement with this practice. If private prisons are going to use prisoners as slave labor then the government should not be paying the private company for the services rendered. The state is paying the prison to feed, cloth, house, and otherwise take care of the prisoner. The private company should be doing so out of the money paid to them from tax dollars.

Q3: What effect on other companies does using prisoners for work have on the economy of the region?

A3: This is the answer that goes to the very heart of the problem from a capitalistic point of view. Slavery was terrible for the economies of the southern states for the simple reason it took jobs away from otherwise able workers. It stole profits from companies wanting to provide the service that slaves did, and slavery worked against innovation and technology. For the exact same reasons we should not be employing prisoners to do work for free or for ridiculously low wages. Every service a prisoner provides is work taken from an able-bodied person. It removes profits that could be made for the company employing said person.

Conclusion

I’m not opposed to prisoners working but they should be paid fair wages for said work. This has additional benefits. It gives prisoners a sense of worth and accomplishment in finishing tasks. It gives prisoners money to accumulate for their eventual release which makes their rehabilitation into society significantly less difficult. Prisoners should also have access to educational material so that they can, should they so choose, improve their chances of getting gainful employment when released.

Finally I’m opposed to using prisoners as slaves simply on ethical grounds. It is wrong to force another person to labor without wages under any circumstances. Prisoner or not.

What do you think?

Should prisoners be paid fair wages for their work while incarcerated?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Kaepernick, Solo, and How to be Consistent

Posted on by

solo-kaepernickThere are two interesting stories in the sports world these days. A soccer player named Hope Solo said some nasty things after losing a soccer game and a football player named Colin Kaepernick is refusing to stand during the National Anthem.

People seem to have inconsistent viewpoints on these two things. Not about the actions themselves but about how the employers of these two athletes should treat said actions.

Many people think Solo has every right to say what she wants and the league should not be able suspend her because of freedom of speech. Many people think the United States Soccer Federation is well within their rights to suspend her.

Many people also think that Kaepernick has every right to say, or in this case not stand, and the league or team cannot suspend him. Others think the National Football League or the San Francisco 49ers have every reason to and should suspend or even fire him.

What I find interesting is that largely the people who are think Solo should not be suspended support suspending Kaepernick. Those who think Solo’s suspension is legitimate think that Kaepernick should be subject to no penalty.

My loyal readers, I’m here to tell you there is only one correct answer. Do not argue. Do not debate. Do not interrupt. Read.

Keapernick and Solo have every right to speak their mind. They can say nasty things about opponents and refuse to stand for the anthem. The government cannot and should not be able to arrest them for such actions or words. That’s what Freedom of Speech as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States means.

The USSF, the NFL, and the 49ers have every right to fire or suspend either of them. It’s their business and they can largely discipline employees as they see fit.

That’s it. There is no argument. Go home and have a nice meal with someone you love!

Peace.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

DEA Profiles Travelers and Takes their Cash

Posted on by

money-seizedI’ve written about police seizures in the past but the story I just read brings my hate of them into even starker contrast.

The DEA pays clerks at travel agencies to find travelers who make short duration trips, one-way trips, trips paid for in cash, trips made by people with past criminal records, and various other “flags”. They then pull said traveler aside and ask if they can search their luggage. If refused they bring in dogs to sniff for drugs.

If what happens next doesn’t disturb you then you should probably stop reading my blog. If you have money, they take it and say see you later. No charges. No questioning. Just snatch and grab.

By the way drug sniffing dogs are awful at their job. They fail more than they succeed and in a statistic that tells it all, they fail more often with minority suspects. That clearly means the dogs are taking cues from their handlers to “report” a positive. That’s not my point but I hope you’re disturbed by it in any case.

The key here is that they are not interested in stopping crime, in making your neighborhood safe, in protecting and serving. They are interested in taking money, no matter its source. There are numerous cases where they took the money and after a long legal proceeding gave some of it back. Some of it!

The drug trade does a good job of making drug manufacturers and dealers wealthy but the drug interdiction trade does a better job of paying the salaries of tens of thousands of government workers who would otherwise be unemployed, or horror of horrors, actually protecting and serving rather than terrorizing and stealing!

There’s no excuse for this, none. I don’t believe in the War on Drugs at all. I think all drugs should be legal. Don’t get me started. All drugs are legal, just certain brands not controlled by the pharmaceutical industry are illegal. But even if you do believe drugs are harmful and we should be preventing their distribution I find it hard to believe you would be on board with taking money from drug dealers and letting them go without even trying to convict them. All that does is make them go back and get more drugs! The loss of cash is an operating expense.

The drug interdiction agents are actually incentivized to not charge drug dealers. They are much better off taking the money and letting the dealers go back and make more money which agents can then steal, I mean seize, at a later date!

Drug money has corrupted our government and our law enforcement agencies at the highest level. They are more interested in making, I mean seizing, money than in stopping crime!

Do you still believe in the War on Drugs?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Corruption Wins – Supreme Court Vacates Bob McDonnell Case

Posted on by
BOB-MCDONNELL

An interesting corruption case has been slowly moving through the court system here in the United States. The Supreme Court rendered their decision in June of this year.

The former Governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell and his wife received gifts, trips, loans, and other items from a lobbyist of a pharmaceutical company. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court the justices seemed to be of the opinion that the way McDonnell went about doing his business was perfectly normal. Their line of questioning seemed to indicate that accepting trips, gifts, loans, and other largesse from lobbyists was so pervasive that to put McDonnell in prison would essentially open every politician to such prosecution and bring government to a stop. That a political motivated prosecutor could attack anyone from the opposite party at will.

Corruption is Already Legal

The final decision indicates the court thinks corruption is completely institutionalized and there is nothing to be done about it. They vacated the sentence against McDonnell in a unanimous decision.

The point seems to be that for a government official to be charged with corruption related crimes they must state a willingness to work on behalf of the person giving the bribe. If they simply take the bribe and give that person access to public officials. When they work to pass legislation helping the briber, that is not a crime. Only if the politician explicitly declares plans to help the person in exchange for the gifts is it a crime. Good to know … if you’re a politician or a lobbyist. Don’t ask, don’t tell indeed. Here’s a trip to Europe for you and your family. Have a house for your child, a Rolex for you, say no more, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Where do I Stand?

So, you are probably wondering, where do you stand on this issue, Tom? I’m glad you asked because I’m happy to tell you.

The Supreme Court Justices were perfectly correct. If what McDonnell does passes for criminal corruption then there are precious few members of Congress that should not be in jail. It is the norm. Lobbyist providing fine dinners, alcohol, sports tickets, trips, business favors to family and friends, loans, and gifts is rampant and pervasive. A zealous president with no morals, a mean streak, and a vindictive personality could well order the Justice Department to attack and imprison all foes using this case as a precedent.

It’s reality. I certainly don’t like it but I’m also a pragmatist and I don’t think there is a judicial fix to the corruption that pervades our system of government. Crony capitalism is entrenched.

Solutions

What to do? There is no simple answer. The main issue seems to me to be that legislators control how well a business does by passing legislation that favors one company or another. By allowing politicians to control business we invite corruption. If we limit laws regulating businesses, we limit the interest a business owner has in influencing a politician and the ability of said politician to favor a particular business.

The less power government has the less interested is anyone in influencing the politicians.

Tom Liberman

Brian Everidge, Seinfeld, Recycling, and how we Create Criminals

Posted on by

michigan-recyclingThere’s an instructive story in the news today about a young entrepreneur/criminal named Brian Everidge who stole a plot from Seinfeld and tried to recycle some 10,000 beverage  containers gathered outside of Michigan. Michigan pays ten cents for each such container which is the highest price in the United States.

This refund fee is paid for when the original container is purchased by the consumer with a ten cent surcharge built into the price.

The idea behind the plan is to encourage people to recycle. This is government trying to get us to behave in a way they desire. It certainly has an effect as Michigan has the highest recycling rate in the nation. This number must be taken with some skepticism because clearly people like Everidge are bringing in containers from surrounding states and collecting the deposit, thus boosting the rate.

There is another side of this. Consumers are paying ten cents for every such container but about 10% of them are not being returned for deposit. So, what is done with this “extra” money? That’s where we start to see ulterior motives. 80% of the money is given to the state earmarked for the cleanup of polluted sites. The merchant selling the bottle gets the other 20%. That’s a lot of money.

In addition we make criminals out of people like Everidge. Certainly everyone who lives near the Michigan border takes advantage of the system to purchase outside the state and redeem within.

Proponents of the plan will point out that it saves the state money in cleanup and also helps the environment. That is completely correct.

I’m certainly not opposed to recycling nor blind to its cost benefits. My problem here is the ten cent fee has created thousands of criminals. This is a pattern we see everywhere in the United States. Laws which are designed to be helpful essentially create criminals and encourage criminal behavior. The result of the fee should have been painfully apparent.

I’m not going to offer alternative solutions here, of which I’m sure there are some. My point is we should not write laws that encourage people to be criminals, no matter the other supposed benefits.

This is how we end up with a police officers spending their time pursuing things that should not be criminal in the first place, how we alienate police from the communities they serve, how we create a prison population second to none in the world at an expense of $74 billion a year.

We should not be looking for more way to put people in jail. For laws that give people a financial incentive to commit crimes.

I recognize this is an isolated incident and a relatively minor law but I find it educational. This is a law that tries to encourage people to recycle but in fact encourages them to break the law.

Legislators, think hard before passing laws. We have far too many and the result is plain to see.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

They Never Learn – Slaphouses, Police, Gambling

Posted on by

slaphouse-boxI just read a story about something called Slaphouses in an area of California just outside what is called Little Saigon. It is an area where a number of Vietnamese live having come there during and just after the Vietnam War. Gambling is common in the Vietnamese culture, as it is in almost all cultures.

Gambling is largely illegal in California but, as we all know, making something illegal doesn’t prevent it from happening. In order to serve customers who liked to gamble, a number of Vietnamese coffee shops in the region had video gambling games on the premises. These were setup so that at the flick of a switch the bartender could make them appear to be regular games which didn’t involve gambling.

For some reason the authorities decided to swoop in and shut them all down. Yay! Gambling stopped! Society saved! Right?

Of course not. It doesn’t take much to figure out what happened. People still wanted to gamble. The public places where they could do so were shut down. So people started hosting gambling parties at residential sites. What people? Well, criminals of course. So now we’ve got large gatherings of noisy people in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Of course the neighbors complain. So would I. Of course the criminals running the houses introduce drugs and are happy to charge up stolen credit cards. They have no problem intimidating neighbors or even paying them off. That’s the nature of crime.

So now the police are raiding these gambling houses with guns and dogs. The last line of the article says it all. Westminster police Sgt. Darin Upstill – You shut them down enough times, they’ll be out.

No, sergeant Uphill. No they won’t. They’ll just find another way to do business which will likely, if it doesn’t already, involve corrupting the local police force.

The end result is that instead of allowing people to gamble in a public place in a way that profits legal businesses, we drive the entire thing underground funneling money to criminals. Such laws don’t crack down on crime, they encourage it, they fund it! They alienate the police force from the community they are trying to serve. We see the horrific results of that alienation daily. That alienation results in tragedy for both the community and the fine men and women doing the policing.

Will we never learn? Ever?

It’s just discouraging. The solution is so obvious. Let people gamble!

Yes, people will gamble away their lives. It’s the price of freedom. Freedom is free, it’s just not safe.

The United States just doesn’t stand for freedom anymore, it doesn’t. It stands for passing as many laws to restrict its citizens as possible with the illusion of safety as the excuse. That’s the opposite of freedom.

I’ve quoted Mr. Benjamin Franklin before and I’ll do it again. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Wisconsin Prison Bans Dungeons and Dragons

Posted on by

Dungeons_and_Dragons_MiniaturesA story that hits me in my proverbial breadbasket just came across the wires. The Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin banned playing Dungeons and Dragons (no word on Pathfinder) by inmates.

I’m a role-playing game enthusiast to say the least. I love playing such games. I think it’s ridiculous that those in power think playing the game might encourage escape fantasies among the inmates. I imagine the escape fantasies are already on their mind. A fellow named Kevin T. Singer is incarcerated at that institution and had a regular Dungeons and Dragons game with fellow inmates.

Let’s cut to the chase. Prison officials do not believe that playing Dungeons and Dragons constitutes an escape or violence risk. They just wanted to make life more difficult for Singer. They found a ridiculous rational for doing so, implemented it, and laughed as they took away his books and homemade material. Ha, they said, we’re in charge and we get to tell you what to do.

The courts agreed. Even though there is no evidence that such games cause troubles in prisons (because they don’t), the court sided with the prison.

Sadly, I agree with the courts. The removal of role-playing games is something the prison can enforce. The inmates have been duly convicted of a crime. A particularly brutal murder in this case. The authorities run the prison and unless they are taking away a Constitutionally guaranteed right, they can do as they will.

My message today is for the prison officials. You are not making Wisconsin or this nation any safer. By using your power to bully and punish a prisoner, for the simple reason that you can, you actually increase the chance said prisoner will learn to hate authority figures all the more. The prison should run the damned game, if you’ll pardon my choice language. They should encourage inmates to work as a team and learn to appreciate those in authority don’t have to be jackbooted thugs. That they can actually be interested in the well-being of their charges.

Being in a position of authority is a tremendous responsibility. You can influence people in a good way and make this world a better place or you satisfy your sadistic urges to hurt and demean people.

I’m certainly not saying Singer is a wonderful person. The fact remains that he and other prisoners may someday return to society. Isn’t it in our best interest to make sure they return better than they went in, not worse?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Hunter Osborn and the Penis that Traumatized Everyone

Posted on by

hunter-osborn-penis

**UPDATE – All charges have been dropped**

Really? A felony for exposing your penis in a group photo of the football team?

Yep, that’s what it’s come to in this great country of ours. Hunter Osborn pulled down his football pants just enough to expose his penis in the team picture. The prank went unnoticed and the picture was placed in the school yearbook.

Osborn is now being charged with sixty-nine (yes, ha ha) counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure, one each for his clearly traumatized teammates, and a felony count of furnishing harmful items to minors, presumably other students who purchased the yearbook.

Smart move by Osborn? Probably not, but good grief, have we no sense of humor? First off his sixty-nine teammates share a locker room with him. I strongly suspect they’ve seen his penis before. I suspect they’ve seen quite a number of them over the years. I played sports, I was in locker rooms, boys have penises, is that the right word? What is the plural of penis? Do I care? No. Penises it is.

Does anyone actually think this image was harmful to minors?

Have the police in Mesa, Arizona not heard of the internet? Pictures of penises abound, and breasts as well, you might, if you look hard, even find a vagina, ahhh! Run, hide the children! They must not see a penis, breast, or vagina lest they be emotionally scarred.

It was a silly prank but let’s face reality, no one was hurt. There was a time when the football coach would have made Osborn clean the locker room for a week the whole time snickering away and remembering some of his own youthful indiscretions.

And poor Osborn is saying things like he was disgusted by his behavior? Is that the kind of adults we want to raise? Disgusted by showing his penis in a football picture? It’s stupid but, frankly, kind of a funny.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Princeton could use a guy like Joel.

Tom Liberman

Mistakenly Demoted for Political Beliefs – Hefferan v. Paterson

Posted on by

Constitution of United StatesAn absolutely fascinating case was decided by the Supreme Court this week. This case demonstrates why I find law such an intriguing subject.

A fellow named Jeffrey Hefferan was demoted from his job as a detective in the Paterson, NJ police department after he was spotted picking up a political sign for an opponent of the sitting mayor. Said mayor was friendly with the police chief.

It’s clear this action is unconstitutional. You cannot punish an employee for expressing a political preference for one candidate over another. However, believe it or not, that’s not actually what happened. Hefferan was picking up the sign for his mother. He was not expressing a political opinion as is his First Amendment right. He was demoted not for political speech but by mistake. Therefore being demoted wasn’t unconstitutional, or at least that’s the argument the city of Paterson made before the Supreme Court.

The court ruled 6 – 2 in favor of Hefferan.

I agree with the court and let me explain why. The two justices who dissented, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, agree with the city of Paterson because Hefferan wasn’t demoted for his protected First Amendment rights, he was demoted by people mistakenly believing he was expressing said rights. This is an insistence upon a Strict Constructionism interpretation of the Constitution. If we are to take the Constitution for its literal meaning instead of its intent then Thomas and Alito are correct in this case.

I argue that the point of a law is its intent. The question Strict Constructionists then demand is: Who determines intent?

Judges, that’s who. That’s the whole point. The written word is always going to fall short of the intent of the law. I certainly don’t like judges who interpret in a manner that expands the Constitution beyond what I consider reasonable but I cannot indulge in the intellectual deceit that there is no such thing as interpretation. Every case is based on interpretation of ambiguous words. Alito and Thomas rely on volumes of interpretation of the First Amendment. Is a political sign actually Freedom of Speech? Speech literally is the spoken word, not the written word. It has long been interpreted to mean the written word but that’s not the literal meaning of the Free Speech section of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment reads thus: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,…

Congress is not passing a law of any kind in this case. A local law enforcement agent demoted a subordinate. A Strict Constructionist must agree that any government official can fire anyone for their political beliefs at any time. By this logic a state could pass a law making being a Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian illegal. They could imprison those who dissent. After all it is not Congress passing said laws.

We must always consider intent, even if that interpretation is wrong at times.

It we insist on Strict Constructionism the Constitution becomes a worthless piece of paper.

Of course Hefferan was demoted for his political opinions. His political opinions were mistakenly identified, that’s true, but the underlying reason he was demoted remains clear and unmistakable.

The Constitution guarantees that we can speak our political minds and not be punished by the government for so doing, even if the wording does not explicitly express such. Hefferan works for the government. He cannot be demoted for either expressing his political opinion or by someone who mistakenly thinks he is expressing his political opinion. They are one in the same.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Chet Hanks and Being Responsible for Someone Else’s Actions

Posted on by

chet-tom-hanks-rita-wilsonA man is suing Tom and Rita Hanks because their son, Chet, reportedly caused a car accident that injured that man. I’d like to examine the idea that a third party can be held responsible for the actions of another person.

Tom Hanks and his wife are the registered owners of the car Chet was driving. Chet has a history of drug and alcohol abuse. The main thrust of the argument is that by purchasing a car and insurance for Chet, they enabled him to drive. Without their intervention he would not have been able to drive a vehicle and thus would not have been in the accident.

The lawsuit brought to my mind the idea of suing someone for what in legal terms is largely called negligence. Negligence law is quite complex and I could get quite bogged down in minutia. I want to avoid that.

There are many situations most people can agree whether a third party is or is not negligent. I’ll give an example of both.

Your friend comes to you and asks to borrow your firearm (or kitchen knife) so they can shoot (or stab) someone else and you give it to them without question. I think most people would say that you are partially responsible for the ensuing murder.

Your friend borrows your firearm (or kitchen knife) to go practice at the shooting range (or cut vegetables) but then shoots (or stabs) someone else. I think most people would agree you did not behave in a negligent fashion.

At what point am I responsible for someone else’s harmful actions? That’s the question. That’s the legal line of negligence. It’s not an easy question. Each case must be adjudicated on its merits. And yet, I think there is an answer.

The larger, and better, answer is that we are not responsible for another person’s actions. They alone are responsible. If I provide that person with the means to commit a crime (the car in this case), there is no way to say they wouldn’t have acquired those means via another avenue. Chet could have purchased his own vehicle and gotten insurance. He could have stolen a car. He could have driven without insurance.

If a friend comes to me saying they want to murder someone and I immediately loan them my gun, I am not responsible for the ensuing murder. I didn’t do it nor did I encourage or manipulate my friend into doing it. I am certainly guilty of being a horrible person. I never should have loaned them the firearm. I should have tried to talk them out of it. I should have called the police to alert them. I should have called the target and warned them. I’ve failed as a person on many levels but I did not commit murder.

And yet there is a victim. Someone’s life was changed or ended. The family and friends of the murder victim. Maybe the victim survived but is in a vegetative state or crippled. Their life has been fundamentally and irreversibly changed. If it was one of my sisters or friends I would be extraordinarily angry at the negligent third party who gave the murderer the firearm. But would that person be guilty of negligence and owe me money?

I say no. I say you can’t be responsible for another person’s actions unless you intentionally manipulate them into doing something. We must all be responsible for our own actions.

It’s a tough concept to swallow and I understand people will disagree. My final argument is to ask if negligence laws prevent people from criminal activity? If Tom and Rita Hanks are held financially responsible for Chet’s alleged mistakes does that make the world a safer place? If parents around the nation who have children with alcohol or drug dependencies stop getting cars for their dependents will it stop the children from driving? Or will it cause more problems as said children need transport and resort to whatever methods required to get it?

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Chess and the Internet Live Update Controvery

Posted on by

agon-limit-broadcast-chessI know the title of this blog isn’t too exciting but if you’ll put up with me for a moment I think I can show how a controversy that is roiling the chess world might well have a big impact on you.

The situation is this: A company called Agon Limited contracted with the FIDE (World Chess Federation) to have exclusive rights to develop, organize, and commercialize the World Chess Championship cycle. As part of this exclusive control they demanded that no other site publish information about ongoing games in the just concluded 2016 Candidates Tournament. In the past other chess orientated sites have broadcast such events on a move-by-move basis. They didn’t broadcast a live view of the players, just the moves those players made on an image of a chessboard that was updated regularly.

Several sites refused to accept this demand and went ahead with their broadcast. Agon is now moving forward with legal action against those sites.

At this point, if you’re still with me, you’re probably wondering how this effects you.

If Agon is successful in their efforts it means that no one can legally give information about an ongoing event without permission from the original content provider. This is an extraordinarily broad restriction. It means that sports websites like ESPN could not give you updates on the status of current events. It would mean, for example, that the only way you could learn what was going on in the currently running 2016 NCAA Basketball Championships would be to tune into the primary broadcaster. No other outlet could give you so much as an update on the score of the game.

It could be extended to non-sports events like awards shows. No entertainment outlet would be allowed to broadcast the winner of an award until the conclusion of the show.

The benefits for the original broadcaster are obvious. If the only way to get information about an event is to watch said event from the provider, it forces more people to watch the show. The drawbacks for everyone else are likewise apparent. Every other outlet that gains an audience by broadcasting information about the event is out of business. All users that cannot or do not want to watch the original broadcast are left without recourse.

One can certainly imagine if the primary broadcaster has sole rights to updates of an event, they might well find a fee-based structure in order to gain access. They have a captive audience. That also cannot be good for consumers.

Paying attention to what this about yet?

I’m hard pressed to believe the courts will support Agon in this lawsuit but it bears watching.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Kicked Out of a Bar for Being Eight

Posted on by

drinking-age-minimumOnce a month we have a company happy hour after work at the tavern downstairs in our building. We drink a few drinks, sing a few songs, eat some pizza, and have a nice time. The owner of the company often brings his eight year old daughter because she likes the pizza.

I just arrived home after said event. Sadly Sophia was unable to enjoy her pizza tonight. My boss and his daughter were removed for the premises. Apparently she’s too young to be in a bar. Yeah, I’m angry. Yeah, we’re not having our happy hour there next month.

I’m of the opinion this incident gives us great insight into why laws generally fail to accomplish their purpose.

Let me say up front that I don’t blame the bar. I blame government. I think the bar was probably under pressure because they had underage drinkers in the past. They had most likely been warned or even fined for allowing underage drinking.

I also don’t want to talk about the general stupidity of drinking laws. I’m going to focus on the abject idiocy of what happened tonight.

Tonight a father and his eight year old daughter were prevented from doing something they loved because the government thinks it knows better than the parent. That’s the long and the short of it and it if doesn’t disgust you, well, there’s something wrong with you.

Let’s imagine minimum age drinking laws make sense (they don’t, but allow the fantasy for the moment). There was no chance Sophia was going to sneak up to the bar and trick the lovely, and I do mean lovely, bartender into making her an Old Fashioned. If my boss wanted to allow her a sip of his drink then he could easily and legally do so at home.

I ask you this question. Who was protected by what happened tonight? Who?

The answer is obvious, no one. No one! A law that protects no one and prevents a father and daughter from enjoying a fun evening together cannot be anything other than evil. Yes, evil. I’ve gone there. Sophia looks forward to this happy hour. She loves spending time with her parents and the other member of our company. She was denied enjoyment. Her parents were denied enjoyment. Most importantly, I was denied the pleasure of my boss, his wife, and Sophia this evening.

The ridiculous application of a law caused suffering. Again, let’s imagine the government has a vested interest in keeping nineteen year olds from drinking. At what point aren’t you allowed to use a little self-discretion? A little judgment? Sophia was not going to be drinking. She was not going to be getting drunk. She wasn’t going to fool anyone into serving her.

I understand people will say that yes, Sophia was hurt, but we must protect the nineteen year olds from the danger of drinking at a bar. That we must have laws. That the laws must be enforced.

I disagree. I think any law that isn’t flexible enough and thus causes absurd enforcement should not be a law at all. What do you think?

Is it proper to prevent young children from being in bars?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn