Category Archives: Libertarian

Democracy – Good or Bad

Posted on by

ResponsibilityYesterday I suggested that the United States is becoming a democracy and put forward some ideas to support that assertion. Today I’ll take on the proposition that this is a bad thing and the methods needed to stop the trend.

Many people with whom I speak think that the United States becoming a democracy is a good thing. They argue that the country was created as a democracy. I think this largely comes from the preamble of the Constitution of the United States.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It’s that We the People line. It does all come back to we the people but the reality is that we are a Representative Republic which I discussed yesterday.

The other main argument that I hear to support democracy is that the politicians are in place to enforce the will of the  people. I’ll quote some of the founding fathers to refute this idea.

Alexander Hamilton: “Democracy was the surest path to tyranny” and “That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.”

James Madison: “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

John Witherspoon: “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”

I’m a particular fan of that last one and I can’t do better than these great men. I’ll try to sum up: In a democracy the majority will always tyrannize the minority and a government’s duty is protect all its citizens, not just the majority and the flavor of the moment.

So, if what I suggested yesterday is true, that we are becoming a democracy, it seems to follow that we are headed towards a violent death as suggested by Mr. Madison.

As always, I don’t want to spend all my time complaining, pointing fingers, and otherwise acting like a modern citizen of this country. I will try to offer remedies instead of five second sound bits to enflame popular sentiment.

If this trend towards democracy threatens the United States then what solution do I offer? Certainly polling is not going away, the internet and popular sentiment directly expressed to our representatives it not going to end, so how can we arm our politicians with the courage to make the decisions that are unpopular but good for the nation?

First, on a state and local level I would start to remove all direct vote propositions. The politicians need to make the laws, not the people. If the politicians pass a law that I disagree with then I will have to harbor that for a period of time and use my outrage in the next election. By then, their wisdom might shine through my momentary passion of opposition, or not.

I would repeal the 17th Amendment which allowed for the direct election of Senators. This is a complex issue because many states were already heading toward direct election anyway. It is a topic that probably deserves an entire blog.

Finally and most importantly, we must educate people to understand the principals of our government. The ideas of a Representative Republic, the dangers of democracy, the ideals of the Founding Fathers. If the majority of people think we live in, or should live in, a democracy then the politicians we elect will think the same thing.

Do you want the laws of this nation being made in the same way your local newspapers has a popular vote for Best of (my town)? When you peruse that yearly “Best of” article do you find the winner is actually the “best of” anything? Or is it simply the lowest common denominator?

Like, Tweet, Stumble, and otherwise comment if you think other people might be interested in these ideas.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

I blame you … and me

Posted on by

VotingOne of the common themes I see in politics is frustration with our representatives in Washington. They are perceived to be partially if not fully responsible for the woes of our nation. Personally, I don’t find fault with them. I blame me and and I blame you.

In the United States we live in what is called a Representative Republic. This basically means that the voters elect representatives who make the decisions. Now, we are slowly becoming a democracy but I’ll save my opinion on that development for a future post.

One argument here is that if we don’t like what our representatives are doing in Washington, in our State, or in our home town, then we have a simple remedy. Vote for someone who makes better decisions.

However, this is not my main argument. In a representative Republic the politicians are representative of the voters. So, if we don’t like the politicians then our problem is with ourselves. What has happened to the United States? Or has anything happened? Have we always be selfish, bickering, and out to gratify our immediate needs regardless of future consequences?

I think the evidence suggests that there was a time when Americans cared about something besides themselves. Certainly the Founding Fathers were trying to build a nation that would change the world, not just their circumstances with England.

I realize there are many wonderful people in this country but the we must look to our politicians because they are a reflection of who we are. Our votes, our values, our desires. That’s what we see in Washington, us. I see men and women who desire election more than governance, whose decisions are based on what will grant them immediate gratification (election victory, donor money) and no stomach for painful solutions. Why do I see this? Because this is us. We vote for them, we, apparently, want them.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m still an Objectivist of the Ayn Rand school. People need to do what is in their self-interest. But, it is in our self-interest to have a strong country.

Your next question is, and should be, so Tom, complain away but what do you offer as a solution? Stop telling me what’s wrong and start telling me how to fix it.

Here it is. Teach people to think critically.

Write blogs on how to make good decisions. Think everything through so as to be a shining example for your friends and your family. Listen to the political pundits and then research their words. Read articles, come to an informed, critical decision. If the majority of people can do this, and it’s not easy, then we will elect politicians who do the same thing. Then, well, anything is possible.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Clint Eastwood – Advertising – Politics

Posted on by

Clint EastwoodLike many people in this country, I watched the Super Bowl this Sunday. Great game. What I want to discuss today is the Clint Eastwood commercial.

To get in the mood you might want to listen to this or this.

First a little background about Mr. Eastwood. His politics are a mix of ideas that appears largely Libertarian and he has supported both Republicans, John McCain, and Democrats over the years.

When the commercial started I thought to myself, “Oh no, a stupid political ad that tries to pull all the notions of patriotism into support of one politician or another.” As the commercial went on … and on … I began to realize this was more of a heartfelt appeal to put our differences aside and do what is in the best interest of the country. From what I know about Mr. Eastwood; if he says he meant that, then I believe him. I was inclined to believe it before Mr. Eastwood was forced to issue explanations.

Parse that, Mr. Eastwood was forced to issue an explanations because he sent out a message of hope trying to bring the United States together. Forced to issue an explanation! Does that tell you something is wrong with our political process?

Now, I do realize at its heart the commercial was an advertisement for Chrysler and, because it has us all talking, it certainly did its job. But, let’s leave that aside and talk about the political thinking, rather than critical thinking, that seems to drive this country today.

One political pundit, who is now dead to me, was “personally offended” by the commercial. Personally offended by an appeal to come together and make the country better? Personally offended by something that had nothing to do with this person. I’m personally offended when my mother tells me I come across as a know-it-all (she might be right). I’m personally offended when I’m compared to Miles Raymond in Sideways (there might just be some truth to that). I’m not personally offended when someone criticizes Ron Paul. I might disagree with the criticsm but I’m not personally offended. It’s not about me and I don’t have such a colossal ego that I think everything is about me (just most things).

This was a commercial about getting together, working together, overcoming adversity, making your community, the country, the world, a better place. Mr. Eastwood, I salute you, sir.

The voters today, and I’m going to talk about the blame the voters have in this problem tomorrow, seem largely to judge the merit of an idea based on the “D” or “R” in front of the name of the person making the proposal. Is that you? Do you not bother to think about the issue once you hear who is talking? Do you vote for the party and not the person? Do you let other people tell you who to vote for and against?

Are you one of those people who finds it easier to vote by party affiliation rather than spend time critically examining the candidates?

If so, I have one suggestion:

Stop voting. You’re hurting this great country.

Share, Like, Comment, Stumble, Tweet, and all the rest of you think someone you know might find this interesting. Tell me if you disagree!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Non-interference versus Isolationism

Posted on by
non-interference

Much of the criticism I hear about my Libertarian politics concerns the idea of non-interference and often it is because there is confusion between that concept and isolationism.

What Ron Paul and other Libertarians like myself are talking about is non-interference. This dates back to George Washington in his Farewell Address when he suggests avoiding foreign entanglements. The United States long avoided such alliances.

What does Non-Interference Mean

It’s a broad definition and it means different things to different people. Largely non-interference means not having alliances with foreign nations. Not interfering in their internal politics, and not going to war on foreign soil. It is important to consider that times have changed as far as the ability of a nation to extend their force. When Washington was president the United States was physically isolated from Europe and its bickering. It was difficult for European powers to extend their influence into the American region. This has changed with the advent  of intercontinental ballistic missiles and connected economies.

What non-interference does not mean, in my opinion, is that we should stay completely out of the affairs of the world. This is isolationism and in the modern world is a dangerous policy. Newt Gingrich is correct when he talks about the dangers of an air burst nuclear weapon and the modern communication grid. We cannot isolate ourselves from the world because the world has the ability to touch us both militarily and economically. We must engage the powers of the world but that doesn’t mean we need to police them or dictate to them.

History

If we look back on American history I think our worst moments came from meddling in the affairs of foreign nation, in regime change policies, in propping up totalitarian regimes that supported us, at least in words if not deeds.

There are Libertarians who support a stricter version of non-interference that borders on isolationism. They might well quibble with some of my characterizations here. I don’t think the United States should disengage completely from countries like Pakistan. Such policies in regard to Cuba are a mistake. I think we should always attempt to talk with other nations, supply them with help if they ask for it, but we should minimize our attempts to influence their policy decisions.

It is in our interest if Pakistan helps hunt down people trying to hurt the United States but I don’t think we should be trying to purchase that cooperation with what amounts to bribery. If Pakistan wants to cooperate we should engage with them but cautiously. George Washington warned us to be wary not only of our international enemies but of our allies as well and with good reason. They are interested, rightly so, in what is best for their nation.

Conclusions

The waters of international politics are rife with danger and caution is a good ally. Engage but don’t interfere. A fine line.

Tom Liberman

Rise of Islam

Posted on by

I’m of the opinion that one of the largest blunders in United States history was the handling of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. I’m looking at with thirty plus years of hindsight but it’s clear that the moment was a key point in the history of the world.

Before the revolution Iran was ruled by the Shah of Iran. The Shah was in many ways not that bad of a man in that he was largely secular and helped women’s rights but he nationalized the oil industry and suppressed dissent ruthlessly. He was viewed as a puppet for the west who wanted oil.

The Shah’s reputation is actually undergoing a revival in Iran but this is largely because of the oppressive nature of the regime that took power. I talk about all of this merely as background for my main argument.

The Iranian Revolution was the first signal of modern Islamic power, fueled by oil money, that is largely responsible for much of the war and horror we see in the world today. While the Ayatollah and his revolutionary cohorts did promulgate a theocratic state they were largely a popular uprising of the people. Certainly the communist Soviet Union provided agitation but, by and large, it was a revolt of the people.

The revolutionaries took American hostages and we’ve had an adversarial relationship with them ever since. Iran has used its money and religious fervor to influence the rise of Islamic states and terrorism all over the world. What would have happened if President Carter had pushed back from an initial knee-jerk reaction to the revolution?

What if we had told the Iranian leaders: You were right. We shouldn’t have meddled in your country’s affairs. Welcome to the world of nations. We don’t like the idea of a theocracy but we’re willing to work with you.

Would the world be better today? I think so. Perhaps Iran wouldn’t have become so radicalized and other Arabic nations would have looked to us a guiding light rather than an enemy to be destroyed.

It’s all speculation of course. There are so many other variables involved and what happened, happened.

But, I think it is an object lesson of sorts. When situations like this arise in the future, how should we as a nation handle them?

One of the leading causes for the Iranian hatred of the U.S. that continues to this day was our meddling in their affairs after World War II. This leads me to the Libertarian idea of non-interventionism. I’ll talk more about that and how it is different than isolationism tomorrow.

As always, Like, Tweet, Stumble, and otherwise share my ideas if you think they are worthwhile.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Mob Mentality … Individually

Posted on by

There was a recent story about mob craziness that caught my eye and I want to talk about how that same crowd psychology effects individuals when communicating on the internet.

Sigmund Freud said, people who are in a crowd act differently towards people from those who are thinking individually.

I think it’s safe to say that what he means is that people will do things, bad things, that they would not do if dealing with others on a one-on-one basis. It’s fairly self-evident that this is true and I’m not going to devote time in this post to why it happens. What I would like to look at is how the internet engenders mob mentality even when we are sitting alone at a computer.

I don’t know how many of you read the comment section at the bottom of a story but it’s an ugly world. Every voice of reason is sandwiched by layers of vileness. A lot of times these comments come from the same individual who has multiple accounts but the effect is generally the same. A group of people say something vile, often with little or no merit, and it is amplified many times, so much so that other, more rational people, begin to give the ideas credence.

More than once people I know, decent, intelligent people, have repeated something they heard from friends or read in a comment section that was patently false. You can see my previous post about our obligation to correct those sorts of mistakes but that’s not my point here today.

The internet allows us the glory of exploring so many thoughts, so many ideas. There are many voices out there with new, and generally awful, ideas. Just because most of the ideas are bad doesn’t mean there aren’t good things available.

The voices of insanity are drowning out the reasonable. This is dangerous to our society. Good thinkers become discouraged and go into a little corner not to be heard from again.

My point here today is that you can blunt the mob!

Use your Critical Thinking cap when you read a story and even more so when you peruse the comments below. Sign up so that you can comment. Reply with rational arguments. Promulgate reasonable ideas. We can change this country by changing the way people think. Make the internet a force of good. Join in! One comment a day, that’s all I ask.

Like, Tweet, and Stumble with the buttons below and comment, comment, comment!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Censorship by Country

Posted on by

The recent trend towards selective censorship on Twitter and Blogging is an interesting phenomenon that has many people quite upset. I don’t think it’s such a simple thing to parse but I’ll give it try today.

I don’t want to talk about the various pieces of legislation moving through the United States Congress but instead the self-imposed censorship that internet providers are putting in place because various countries are trying to suppress freedom of speech.

It’s an interesting problem because the internet spans national borders and there is obviously no way to conform to everyone’s laws. There are oppressive regimes out there that find free speech to be dangerous. Let’s face facts, free speech is dangerous. You just have to listen to a virulent racist, religious fundamentalist, or misogynist to understand that there are people out there with ideas that are violent and terrible.

You can probably guess that I’m all for freedom of speech. I think that it is important to understand all ideas, even the awful ones, so that you can come to an informed decision. But, as a Libertarian, I also respect the laws of a nation. If China or Iran or Syria doesn’t want to allow it citizens to blog their thoughts then who is the one to change that? Me? Bing? Google? Twitter?

In these cases I try to take the long view. I think trying to impose your will upon another person rarely works. I was against the U.S. led invasion of Iraq from the beginning for this very reason. I think one of the biggest mistakes the U.S. ever made was to not support the Iranian Revolution. I’ll talk about that in a future post but the point here is that trying to force something down someone’s throat rarely succeeds.

So, if the various internet entities tell China, Syrian, Iran, and any other nation; We don’t care about your laws. We’ll just pipe in internet. That just radicalizes those wayward countries.

I think a western style, representative Republic is the best form of government yet devised. One main reason so much of the world has turned to this style of government since the industrial revolution is the shining EXAMPLE of the United States. We fail when we try to impose our values on other nations. Then we succumb to the dangers of Imperialism, Totalitarianism and alienate those who most desperately look to us for hope.

So, I say let nations make their own laws because it will anger their citizens enough to force change. I cannot change you, you cannot change me. We must wait for Syria and Iran and China and the rest of those countries find the power within to  join the rest of world. Maybe then people can stop killing each other and we can get to the business of greatness.

Tell me what you think in the comments.

Like, Tweet, Stumble, and all the rest if you think these ideas are worth sharing.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Half Dome at Yosemite

Posted on by

I recently read an article that explained how the parks department wants to curtail activity at the Half Dome in Yosemite National Park.

There are various reasons for the closing and you can read the entire article if you are interested in that debate but I’d like to talk about the solution to the problem.

Ok, my legion of followers, get ready to put on your Critical Thinking cap.

First, let’s cover the proposed solution which is to limit the amount of people who can use the pulley system up to the top of  Half Dome to 300 a day. Basically the parks department is creating a terrible headache for itself. What will likely happen is that there will be a mad rush to be one of the first 300 people in the line to get the tickets. This will eventually become so ugly they go to some sort of lottery system like they do for big game ticket sales. Anyone at the site before x-hour gets a lottery ticket and then 300 are picked.

This whole process takes time, effort, and management from a parks department that probably already has a lot to do. Now, with our Critical Thinking hat firmly in place let’s try to find a better solution.

Hmmm, you have a product that is so in demand that supply can’t keep up with it, what do you do? Is it really that difficult? Set a price point. If you want to go to the top of Half Dome it will cost $50 a person. If that price tag results in too few or too many visitors after the first year then adjust the price. It’s simple, easy to enforce, and people know what they are getting. Likely it’s a floating price that adjust seasonally. They can then use the money for other parks projects!

Now, the main objection is going to be that the National Parks are there for everyone to enjoy and this is making it a venture only for the wealthy. Now we put on another hat, wait a second, where is it, there we go, my pragmatist hat.

Here’s the deal, the number of people is going to be limited one way or another. So, if the parks department has it their way you could show up with your family, get up a 5:00 a.m. so you can get in line for a chance of getting one of the tickets and get nothing. In fact, that’s what most people would get, nothing. Or, you can decide if you want to pay the fee and then be assured of going.

As for wealthy people getting more, well, that’s capitalism. Getting to Yosemite is not something everyone can afford and the park charges to get in, to hike, and to stay in the lodges. All of these things price out certain groups of people.

In conclusion, I implore you to keep your Critical Thinking hats on for as much of the day as you can and keep that pragmatist cap handy as well!

Tell me what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

What is the "Gold Standard"?

Posted on by

I’ve been reading economic articles and this based with personal conversations leads me to believe that the vast majority of people do not know what the Gold Standard is or, even worse, think they know but are mistaken.

I’m not going to try to explain the entire thing here and I’d suggest a lengthy perusal of the Gold Standard article at Wikipedia if you have more than a casual interest. Nor will I offer my opinion on whether returning to one form or another of the standard is a good idea. This blog is just to explain the standard in modern terms.

The most common misconception I see is that the Gold Standard is a rigid system wherein the total amount of money available for a nation to spend is equal to the market value of the gold they have in reserve. This is fairly close to the original gold specie standard which proved an unsustainable model for a variety of reasons that I won’t discuss today. Suffice it to say that almost no economist considers it a sustainable model.

What Congressman Ron Paul and other Libertarians generally reference as the gold standard is something called the Bretton Woods System. In this system, which took effect in 1945, other countries fixed their exchange rate to the United States and we promised to maintain the price of gold at $35 an ounce. Thus gold was no longer a commodity to be bought and sold which would inevitable lead to price fluctuations. Gold was largely never a commodity but simply money itself. I always cringe when someone talks about the intrinsic value of gold. It has little.

But at its heart the Bretton Woods System merely fixes the price of gold at $35 an ounce and other nations agree to keep their own exchange rate equal to that of the United States.

There are good arguments as to advantages and disadvantages of the Bretton Woods system.

President Nixon abolished the already faltering Bretton Woods system in 1971. There were good reasons for this and a lengthy perusal of the Bretton Woods article is worthwhile.

Looking back with the knowledge of the current economic crisis it seems that one of the best things the system did was prevent huge deficit spending. In 1970 the U.S. debt was about 370 billion dollars. In 2010 it stood at 13.5 trillion dollars. There are a lot of ways to parse that including as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product but I won’t delve into that little debate. What is clear, I think, is that the departure from the Bretton Woods System clearly precipitated vast deficit expenditures.

One of the major negatives with gold as an economic standard is its relatively fixed quantity. Thus, as a nation needs more money, for whatever reason, there is none to spend. This crimps economic growth and limits the ability of lending institutions. How many of you would have a house, a car, or much of anything without loans in one form or another?

So, I hope this makes a murky subject slightly more clear. As always, let me know what you think in the comments section!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

What is the “Gold Standard”?

Posted on by

I’ve been reading economic articles and this based with personal conversations leads me to believe that the vast majority of people do not know what the Gold Standard is or, even worse, think they know but are mistaken.

I’m not going to try to explain the entire thing here and I’d suggest a lengthy perusal of the Gold Standard article at Wikipedia if you have more than a casual interest. Nor will I offer my opinion on whether returning to one form or another of the standard is a good idea. This blog is just to explain the standard in modern terms.

The most common misconception I see is that the Gold Standard is a rigid system wherein the total amount of money available for a nation to spend is equal to the market value of the gold they have in reserve. This is fairly close to the original gold specie standard which proved an unsustainable model for a variety of reasons that I won’t discuss today. Suffice it to say that almost no economist considers it a sustainable model.

What Congressman Ron Paul and other Libertarians generally reference as the gold standard is something called the Bretton Woods System. In this system, which took effect in 1945, other countries fixed their exchange rate to the United States and we promised to maintain the price of gold at $35 an ounce. Thus gold was no longer a commodity to be bought and sold which would inevitable lead to price fluctuations. Gold was largely never a commodity but simply money itself. I always cringe when someone talks about the intrinsic value of gold. It has little.

But at its heart the Bretton Woods System merely fixes the price of gold at $35 an ounce and other nations agree to keep their own exchange rate equal to that of the United States.

There are good arguments as to advantages and disadvantages of the Bretton Woods system.

President Nixon abolished the already faltering Bretton Woods system in 1971. There were good reasons for this and a lengthy perusal of the Bretton Woods article is worthwhile.

Looking back with the knowledge of the current economic crisis it seems that one of the best things the system did was prevent huge deficit spending. In 1970 the U.S. debt was about 370 billion dollars. In 2010 it stood at 13.5 trillion dollars. There are a lot of ways to parse that including as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product but I won’t delve into that little debate. What is clear, I think, is that the departure from the Bretton Woods System clearly precipitated vast deficit expenditures.

One of the major negatives with gold as an economic standard is its relatively fixed quantity. Thus, as a nation needs more money, for whatever reason, there is none to spend. This crimps economic growth and limits the ability of lending institutions. How many of you would have a house, a car, or much of anything without loans in one form or another?

So, I hope this makes a murky subject slightly more clear. As always, let me know what you think in the comments section!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Five Star Reviews … Maybe

Posted on by

I just finished reading a fascinating article about marketing in the internet age. Lately, I’ve been doing a lot of work for my company about internet marketing and the article caught my eye.

Basically the idea is that a retailer gives you an online credit for your purchase if you give the product a good review. As companies learn the power of the internet and positive reviews this sort of thing was inevitable and it’s actually been going on in one form or another a for quite a while already.

There are a variety of methods including writers offering their services for positive reviews and companies aggressively reposting positive reviews. Unethical marketing practices date back to the beginning of time, most likely, and people will always look to tilt the scale in their favor.

The reason I bring this up today is to talk about the government’s role in protecting us from such tactics. I think it’s fair to say that unethical marketing can have an extremely negative effect on the market and work to erode capitalism from within. Let’s say a group of companies price-fix products or a price-war drives out the competition leaving a sole provider of a product who can then set the price as they choose.

So, I’m not a fundamentalist libertarian that thinks the government should have no role in this matter and it is up to the people to figure out for themselves what is best. But, I’m also of the opinion that there is no possible way to make every deceptive marketing practice illegal. That just creates a maze of regulation and hurdles for companies to overcome that in the long run can hurt the free market as much as the activities they are designed to prevent.

Where does that leave me then? Well, we have to write a good law that broadly prohibits unfair marketing practices and then arm the regulators with investigative power and punishments with teeth. Easier said than done but I think it’s the only method to allow a fair playing field where everyone has an equal opportunity to market their product. This allows the consumers to pick the product they want the most which is the driving force that allows capitalism to be successful. When unfair practices pervert the field then capitalism is subverted. I could talk more about how the government has become a purveyor of promoting the businesses that contribute the most to their campaigns but I’ll save that for another blog.

So, what sort of law would I write to make the internet marketing field fair?

Something like this: “No one shall promote a product by whose sale they benefit, nor pay or otherwise recompense anyone else to do so, without noting their relationship with the aforementioned product.”

Probably not perfect and I could do better if I spent more than five minutes on it but basically it just prevents anyone from promoting something they stand to profit by without noting it. You can’t post a positive review or encourage anyone else to do so without noting it. You want to give five-star reviewers a discount, fine, you have to mention the discount in the product description. A little burdensome but I don’t think too much.

Tell me where I’ve slipped up!

Tom
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist