Category Archives: Libertarian

Hurricane Irma and Government Hysteria

Posted on by

hurricane-irmaHurricane Irma has run much of its destructive course and I wanted to take a moment as a Libertarian to discuss the government reaction to the approaching storm and why I think it was a ridiculous overreach.

The storm was huge, it caused massive amounts of damage as it approached the United States. A number of people on islands in the Caribbean were killed. There was and remains danger. The question becomes what is the responsibility of government in situations like this? The moment I was pushed over the Libertarian Rant Cliff was when avowed small-government Republican Governor Rick Scott declared in no uncertain terms, “You cannot survive this.” He was referring to the storm surge that could potential swamp many areas with water.

I’m quite comfortable calling that statement a hysterical lie spewed by a politician who has completely lost track of what it is he is supposed to be doing. Hurricanes are inherently unpredictable. There was a chance the surge would be relatively small, which it ended up being. Many people, of course, survived the surge. Not only was the statement completely wrong, hey we all make mistakes, but it was clearly a lie designed to frighten people into behaving the way the governor thought they should act.

This is what government has become in our nation. People in positions of power not only think they know better than us, but feel the need to frighten us with hysterical proclamations and enact draconian legislation. I’m happy to say at least the police and national guard were not marched through neighborhoods forcing people from their homes. At least the governor has that amount of decency left.

Let’s discuss what a responsible politician should have said. The storm is extremely dangerous. If you decide to remain in the area, here are some are some websites that show you how to properly protect your house. Here is a list of items you should purchase based on the size of your family. Emergency crews are going to be overwhelmed and cannot be counted on to rescue you in a timely fashion if the worst predictions come true. You are in charge of your own life, not me. You have all the information available and I trust you to make the best decision possible.

The danger of Governor Scott’s proclamation is there is certainly going to be another hurricane in the future. The fact that many people hunkered down and survived makes it clear his proclamation was fear-mongering idiocy, those people are likely to ignore warnings in the future. Those stupid politicians are always preaching disaster and it’s never as bad as they say. The reality is sometimes the worst predictions do come true. Sometimes there is horrific danger. If politicians create an environment where they are considered overreacting fools, people stop listening to them when there is real danger.

One of the main Libertarian mantras is that the job of government is not to save us from ourselves. I have no problem with the government issuing warnings, explaining the dangers that confront us, but I draw the line at hysterical nonsense like that Governor Scott spewed. You, Governor, do not know what is best for me. Even if you did, it’s not your responsibility to force or frighten me into doing what you want. I’m an adult, treat me accordingly.

Tom Liberman

 

No Recess During Eclipse

Posted on by

eclipseIf you were a child and told you could not go outside during a solar eclipse because looking at the sun was dangerous; would that make you more or less likely to go outside on the sly? I think the answer to this question gives us great insight into the problems associated with a state that tries too hard to protect us from ourselves.

The Cumberland Valley School District sent a letter to parents explaining that recess will be cancelled on Monday August 21st during the full solar eclipse. I think it’s a mistake and I’m happy to tell you why. I don’t disagree that looking at the sun is dangerous. I think children should be warned not to look at the eclipse as it could damage their eyes. I understand the danger of litigation. I just think preventing children from going outside during the event is a silly way to go about protecting the children.

A far better solution would be to assemble outside with all of the students and have a telescope with appropriate lenses on it for them to use. Another solution would be to have an assembly where a live broadcast of the eclipse is shown on screen. Perhaps parents could be asked to purchase eyewear that will protect the student and send it to class with their child that day.

There are many, many solutions available to the district and they chose the one that is probably going to endanger the students the most. By telling them they can’t go outside at all, they work against human nature. Just looking at the sun during a normal day will cause blindness. Children go outside quite frequently and manage not to blind themselves. I understand the special circumstances of the eclipse will generate more interest in looking at it, I just think the solution is utterly silly.

This attempted solution mimics what government does when they try to force behavior on its citizens. Using mind altering drugs can be dangerous. Getting married is a good thing. The government rewards behavior they think is useful and punishes behavior they think is dangerous. The problem is that such actions generally create new and bigger problems than those they are trying to solve.

I don’t want to give a series of examples, starting with the War on Drugs, to show the generally negative outcome of such laws; I just want you to contemplate what happened in school when you were young and there was a solar eclipse. Were you denied recess? Were you herded into a dark room to mitigate the chances you’d blind yourself? How many kids were blinded?

It’s always important to consider the result of any rule or law you might want to enforce. If the only good it’s going to do is make people feel like they are doing something useful, then maybe you should reconsider.

Tom Liberman

Otto Warmbier and our Nanny Country

Posted on by

otto warmbierI’m sick of it. Sick. We are a nanny nation. I’m reading comment after comment about the terrible death of Otto Warmbier and virtually everyone seems to think they know better than Warmbier, they know better than his parents, they know better than the travel agency, they know better how to lead everyone else’s life.

I’ve got advice for each and every one of you. Why don’t you try to lead your own miserable life and stay out of everyone else’s business? Is that too much to ask? Really? You get to tell Warmbier how stupid he was for going to North Korea. You get to tell his parents there must to be an autopsy. You get to push your political agenda by using the death of this young man. You’re sick. All of you! Sick, sick, sick.

When did we become a nanny nation? When did every single decision anyone makes become our business? People are concerned the United States is becoming a Nanny State where the government feels compelled to tell us how to conduct our lives? Well, look in the mirror. Just look and tell me what you see.

What was your last comment on any news story? Was it telling someone else they were wrong about something? How to go about their business? For whom they should vote? That they are ruining their lives by eating coconuts? Ruining their lives by not eating coconuts? Good grief. Shut up, the lot of you, leave people alone.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind an informed discussion. Here are the facts of the case and the opinion that I’ve arrived upon. What do you think? That’s reasonable. But no one does that anymore. It’s all somebody else’s fault. It’s all shouting and yelling and feeling superior because we’re certain we would do things better.

Are you so insecure with your own life that you have to tell everyone else how to live? Because that’s what it is. If you’re posting stories about how wrong and stupid other people are, it’s because you have no confidence in yourself. You might think you do, but the proof is in the proverbial pudding. If you actually had confidence, you wouldn’t feel the need to tell everyone else how to go about their lives, all the time!

How about you leave the Warmbier family alone to experience their grief in the way they choose to do so? Is that so much to ask, you miserable excuses for human beings?

Tom Liberman

Gordon Ramsay and the Case that Shouldn’t Be

Posted on by

gordon ramsayThere’s an interesting legal situation revolving around celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay and his in-laws. About seven years ago Ramsay got into a dispute with the father and brothers of his wife. They hacked into his business computers attempting to steal financial information.

Sometime after their nefarious activity was discovered the families reconciled and Ramsay and his wife decided against legal proceedings against the Hutchesons, Chris, Adam, and Chris Jr. The prosecutor in the case felt differently.

That’s what I’d like to discuss today. If the victims of the crime don’t want to prosecute, what should the state do? This is different than prosecuting criminal charges against those who take advantage of people unable to defend themselves, namely children and the mentally disabled. In those situation, I believe prosecutors should pursue criminal charges. However, when the victim is an adult and in possession of their mental faculties, I see no reason why the state has an interest in continuing the case.

A crime has most certainly been committed. It is not legal to take information from someone else’s computer without their consent. If the victim of the crime was interested in bringing the perpetrators to justice there is every reason to prosecute the case.

The prosecutor will put forward a single reason for going through with the case despite the victim’s unwillingness to do so. The law has been broken and it is my job to prosecute the wrongdoer. Without such punishment society will fall apart. If we let the perpetrators of this crime off without charging them, other people will be encouraged to do the same. This is an argument I don’t believe.

Firstly, the reasoning is unsound. The particulars of this case seem so rare as to not provide any hope of the same thing happening for another criminal. No one is out there thinking to themselves the only reason not to hack into a system is because they’ll reconcile with their victim and not have to face prison. It’s just not a thought process for someone considering committing this sort of crime.

Secondly, it is not the real reason the prosecutor wants to pursue the case. The real reason is for the aggrandizement of the prosecutor. For many prosecutors, it’s simply a matter of getting a conviction. The more convictions they get the better their resume looks. Then there is the fact this is a high-profile case. That means time in front of the cameras, which helps any future political aspirations.

Meanwhile, there are numerous reasons not to prosecute. The most obvious reason to drop the case is the time and money used could be redirected to another more pressing matter. This is not inconsiderable. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are quite busy with heavy workloads and the court is swamped as a whole.

The most compelling reason, from my perspective, is the simple fact the victims have no desire to see the criminal punished. If the victim of the crime doesn’t consider themselves a victim, then I don’t see how a crime has been committed. Again, let me be clear, I’m not including children and others who are incapable of making a decision about being a victim in this opinion.

Another reason is that getting a conviction does society no good whatsoever. There is little or no chance the criminals in this case are going to commit a similar crime. Society is not served by putting the perpetrators in prison, fining them some amount, or putting them on probation. It is just money for the system.

And that’s plain wrong.

Tom Liberman

Lee Kaplan Case and Libertarians

Posted on by

lee kaplanLee Kaplan, Daniel Stoltzfus, and Savilla Stoltzfus were recently found guilty of horrific crimes. The case is quite interesting from a Libertarian perspective because all the criminals and victims don’t think anything illegal happened. They are all happy with events as they transpired.

The case is centered around the fact Kaplan helped the Stolzfus family financially and they in turn handed seven of their daughters over to him. He began sexually molesting the girls at least from the time they were only seven years old. The mother lived with Kaplan and helped deliver her own granddaughters. In testimony, the accused and their victims argue they did nothing wrong. The parents contend they have the right to hand over the children and the girls imagine they love Kaplan and he loves them in return.

What happened is vile and criminal. Just because the victim of a crime doesn’t realize she or he is a victim doesn’t mean no crime occurred. This seems to be at odds with the general Libertarian mantra that victimless crimes are not crimes at all. Just people engaging in behavior they desire. Libertarians certainly argue this case for the many and myriad drug crimes on the books and also for cases of prostitution.

This is where I break from a number of what I would call fundamentalist Libertarians. These are those largely ideologically in line with my own thoughts but who have come to despise all forms of government and regulation. This is where Libertarians slip into being Anarchists. I think there are people in this world, children included, not capable of making their own decisions. Those who can easily be manipulated into believing things are perfectly normal and acceptable when they are not.

One of the leading Libertarians, who I largely respect, recently wrote a long article about how children should be allowed to work without government intervention. That by allowing them to earn money we emancipate them. This is a problem for me for a number of reasons. One of which is that I like to consider myself a student of history. Child labor laws, while sometimes draconian, came about in response to terrible crimes against children.

Industrial captains went to orphanages and adopted groups of children to work in their factories doing dangerous jobs. One of the most prominent stories involving this sort of behavior involves an orphan named Joseph von Fraunhofer who became a famous physicist.

In addition, it was not uncommon for men to adopt young girls grooming them for eventual marriage much in the way Kaplan did in this case. The history of horrible abuse against children goes back as far as the written record.

There are people in this world in need of protection. People who simply cannot, by the circumstances of their birth, mental, and physical conditions, take care of themselves. They can be manipulated into performing terrible acts and believing they enjoy doing them.
This is one of the roles of government in society. I’m certainly not suggesting government doesn’t make a mess of things and overregulate and over criminalize. I’m just saying cases like this one convince me some form of government is necessary.

Kaplan is a sick and depraved individual. His manipulation of the Stoltzfus family is appalling. When he convinced the parents to relinquish their children to him he was being despicable. When the parents handed over their children to someone else they were, in my opinion, breaking a justified law. It must be illegal to barter children because they cannot protect themselves.

Just because someone thinks they are doing something willingly doesn’t mean the actions being done to them should be legal. We must take into account the victim. Children, physically disabled, mentally disabled, and others need protection by the state.

Now, if the Stoltzfus’s had simply handed over all their money to Kaplan I wouldn’t have a problem. It is their money do with as they will. If they handed over possessions or allowed Kaplan to live with them and use their car, I would have no problem. They are fools, certainly, but they are adults giving away their own possessions.

Children are not possessions and that’s why I’m a Libertarian, not an Anarchist.

Tom Liberman

Insulin and the Web a Story of Anti-Capitalistic Self-Interest

Posted on by

insulinWhat do Insulin and the Internet have in common? The person most responsible for each patented the technology and gave it away for free. There is a lesson to be learned for ardent Libertarians and capitalists.

Back in 1922 a fellow named Frederick Banting, later Sir Frederick, managed to extract and purify something called insulin. Eventually, along with partners J. J. R. Macleod, Charles Best, Clark Noble, and biochemist James Collip, he created a version of the drug that did not cause side effects. Soon children in diabetic wards across the world were being injected and waking up. Prior to that discovery, the parents of those children simply waited for them to die. Diabetic shock was essentially a death sentence.

Sir Frederick and his partners then sold the patent for a whopping sum of $3. The reason they did this was to ensure insulin would be available to all at a reasonable price. They put their humanity ahead of their desire to earn money. The drug patent was worth millions, if not billions, of dollars.

You will note even today there is no generic version of insulin because the patent is essentially available to all. Anyone can come up with a method to produce insulin and sell it. They have to pay no one for the right to do so.

Not that long ago a fellow by the name of Tim Berners-Lee, later Sir Tim, was working at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) as an independent contractor. He came up with an idea called Hypertext which would allow researchers to share and update information. Over the years, he and others expanded on this idea. The result is the World Wide Web.

Eventually, Sir Tim organized the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) located at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which oversees all the protocols of the WWW. He made all of his ideas freely available with no patent or royalties due. He did this because he saw how much good the technology could do and wanted to make sure it spread across the world for the benefit of all.

Speaking from a misunderstood interpretation of Libertarian philosophy, it would seem the decisions of these two titans was rather stupid. Both of them could have gained considerable wealth from their discoveries. By giving them away they forsook riches, or so it would seem.
In actual practice, the situation is different. Because of their generosity and humanity, both received many rewards after essentially giving away multi-million dollar ideas. These rewards included a place in history and also financial success. Both men went on to rewarding careers and lives in which they were not only financially successful but renowned throughout the world.

Too often those who espouse a Libertarian philosophy or a Randian mantra, after Ayn Rand, focus on the financial rewards that success brings. This is a mistake. It is important to understand that financial success is only a byproduct of doing great things. There is also the reward of personal satisfaction. There is also the reward of public acclaim. Both of these things are not to be discounted in regards to self-interest.

If you were to do something that changed the world for the better, the personal satisfaction engendered would be of tremendous value to you as you aged. The continuous support you received from those you helped would be an all but endless source of joy and happiness.
Too often in this world we focus on money. It is merely the byproduct of doing good things for those around us. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with financial success and both Sir Tim and Sir Frederick achieved it despite their apparently altruistic goals. Still, I think it’s clear they made the right decisions.

Tom Liberman

Noah Syndergaard and the MRI Refusal

Posted on by

noah syndergaardAn interesting situation I’ve been following in Major League Baseball regarding star pitcher Noah Syndergaard and a possible injury has been resolved, but it still raises interesting questions. Syndergaard seemed to have an injury to his shoulder and the New York Mets wanted him to see a doctor and receive a Magnetic Resonance Imaging to determine if there was any damage. Syndergaard refused.

Syndergaard then had a terrible outing in his next start and injured his side. He will now acquiesce to the Mets request and have a MRI. What right does Syndergaard have to refuse medical advice from the team and what expectation does the team have that he will follow such advice? Interesting questions.

There is a huge amount of money involved; although as a restricted player, Syndergaard earns a relatively small amount compared to his peers. He is considered one of the best young pitchers in the game and his presence on the mound sells tickets. The Mets have a vested interest in attempting to keep him as healthy as possible. Syndergaard himself is likewise motivated. If he stays healthy he will eventually earn a tremendous amount of money.

All this is rather tangential to the point. If the team wants Syndergaard to undergo a particular medical treatment does he have to do so? The answer is no, he does not. Syndergaard made a decision and the team has no ability to force him. Naturally, there are repercussions for such decisions. The team might base future contract negotiations on this refusal. Other teams might view the refusal in the same light. In the end, it is the player’s choice.

Syndergaard says he knows his body better than anyone else and his is the final decision. He is right about one thing, it is his decision to make.

Let’s take sport out of this and look at it from a business perspective. Let’s imagine the company you work for thinks there is a medical problem and tells you to get treatment. It might well be in your best interest to visit the doctor but it’s still your decision whether or not to do so. That’s liberty. And, finally, we get to my point.

Syndergaard made a poor decision in not getting an MRI. He doesn’t, in fact, know his own body as well as physicians. The Mets have every right to be angry at Syndergaard for refusing medical treatment and the fact his next start was terrible indicates as much. All teams in the future should be aware that Syndergaard is in the habit of denying an injury. All contract negotiations should take this into account.
We are free to choose the course of action we desire, even when that decision is not in our own best interest. When a baseball team or corporation can make medical decisions for you, that is a totalitarian state. We don’t live in one of those.

Being free means being able to make bad decisions. We are not children being told when to go to bed. We are adults and that’s a good thing, even when we fail to take advantage of it properly.

Tom Liberman

Why China Bans Baby Names

Posted on by

china-babyChina has come a long way toward embracing capitalism but, make no mistake about it, they still harbor many of the ideologies of a totalitarian state. This became evident when authorities restricted baby names in the Xinjiang region.

I think it’s important to understand the thinking that led to this ridiculous law. The region is largely populated by Muslims. Muslims are responsible for a great deal of the terrorism that occurs in the world. The leaders of China are rightly concerned the people of this region might commit horrific acts of violence and kill innocents. Certain baby names are associated with terrorism. Arafat, Muhammad, and Jihad among them.

Their solution is to forbid parents from giving their children such names. They think by removing the name, they are removing the idea from peoples’ heads. This is, naturally, utter nonsense. When we restrict the rights and freedoms of people, we only encourage them to become violent. By and large people are terrorists because they feel crushed by an oppressive government that gives them no other options.

The freer a people are to influence their government, they less likely they are to commit acts of terrorism. Why risk your life or hurt others when all you have to do is organize a vote and take over the government?

This peaceful transition of power is possibly the most important factor in creating a stable government. When President Obama takes over for President Bush, when President Trump takes over for Obama, sure, people wail and moan but it is done at the voting booth, not at the point of a gun. When Republicans lost power in 2008 they simply went about trying to win it back. Now that Democrats are out of power they are working hard to regain it; it’s almost certain at some point in the future they will.

In the United States, there are very few restrictions on baby names and these are associated with practicality. Babies can’t have numerical names, babies can’t have names over a certain number of characters, there are some restriction on various non-alpha characters. There are some obscenity bans but those probably wouldn’t hold up to a court review.

The reason I spend all this time illustrating the difference between the way the United States handles the authority of a parent to name their child as opposed to China is to illustrate the difference between a state of mind. In China, the leaders maintain an authoritarian position. They think because they want something to be, they can make laws and it will be so. This is, of course, delusional.

In the United States, we have a history of personal freedom and independence. Our politicians might want to prevent someone from naming their child Jesus Christ or Adolph Hitler. They might find those names sacrilegious or tastelessly disgusting; but they don’t pass laws preventing it because they realize we wouldn’t stand for it. We have a strong judiciary that will check any such impulses from politicians no matter how popular such initiatives might be.

Do not let these facts deter you from thinking people like those in China do not exist here in the United States. There are people out there plotting to pass laws trying to force you to lead the life they think acceptable. There are all sorts of ridiculous laws already out there. In some places in our great nation you can’t wear baggy pants without violating the law. There are laws about how you can engage in sexual gratification with another consenting adult in almost every state. Many places restrict when you can drink and most places ban putting particular chemicals into your body.

When China goes about banning a particular baby name they do it for a reason. They rationalize their law in many ways. They convince the population that doing so will make the people safer. They believe by controlling how other people think and act they make the world a better place. Such laws do exactly the opposite. They create criminals, they engender violence and terrorism, and they stomp upon freedom.

When you learn of a law being proposed that matches with your ethical or moral compass; think twice before throwing your support behind it. If you can force your way of life on someone else, they can do the same to you once they gain control.

Tom Liberman

Melissa Etheridge Smoking Marijuana with Children

Posted on by

melissa-etheridgeSinger Melissa Etheridge recently gave an interview where she talks about smoking marijuana with her two older children. The comments are predictably judgmental although there are more people defending Etheridge than I expected. Count me among them.

I could make a lot of arguments comparing marijuana to alcohol. I had my first sip of beer at the tender age of ten from a can my father was drinking. I drank wine even before that at Passover celebrations. I could point out she lives in California where marijuana is perfectly legal. I could mention Etheridge was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004 and marijuana can be a useful appetite stimulant. I’m going to forego all of those arguments for another that strikes directly to my Libertarian ideology.

What Etheridge does in the privacy of her own home with her adult children is none of your business. You don’t have any right to tell her how to behave both from a legal standpoint and more importantly, from an ethical position.

We are so overly sanctimonious in this country that I sometimes get physically sick to my stomach reading comments. I don’t care how much better you think you are than someone else, mind your business. I don’t care how your parents chose to raise you, mind your business.

I don’t care if you’re opposed to people smoking marijuana, mind your business.

The vast majority of people in this country or overly interested in what everyone else is doing. We have become a nation of busybodies and tattletales. I’m reminded of one of the great lines from The Right Stuff.

The John Glenn and Scott Carpenter characters are upset that some of the other Apollo astronauts are engaging in premarital sex with pretty young women interested in mingling with the heroes. The Alan Shepard character tells them off with Mr. Glenn, you are way out of line. I’d advise you not to try and foist your view of morality on anybody else in this group.

Exactly.

My morality is mine. Yours is yours. And that’s just fine. If you want to do things differently than I’d do them, fine by you. I can choose not to associate with you, but it is not my job to tell you how to lead your life.

We, as an entire nation, are way out of line. Do not question the way another person goes about doing their business. It’s one of the most important lessons I learned while at college in Idaho. The way another person goes about their business is largely none of your concern. We need to be far more worried about how we go about conducting our own lives and far less about everyone else.

This holier than thou attitude is not good. It pervades every aspect of our lives. Maybe I’m an old curmudgeon but it seems to me with the advent of always available media and communication we are more than ever concerned with things that are just none of our business.

If Etheridge wants to smoke marijuana with her kids then more power to her. If you choose not to do so it doesn’t make you better or worse than her, just different. Stop pretending otherwise in some self-delusionary attempt to make yourself feel better.

Mind your business.

Tom Liberman

Too much Celebration in Sports or not Enough?

Posted on by

celebration-rulesI was watching the St. Louis Cardinal’s latest debacle on Sunday Night Baseball when the announcers, bored with the game, started to discuss Yadier Molina and the excitement and celebration he showed during the World Baseball Classic.

In baseball, there are a fairly large number of unwritten celebration rules. The basic idea is that when you celebrate a home run or some other even too greatly you are humiliating your opponent. That by celebrating your victory you are showing disrespect to the opposing team and players. In the past, the players in the game took care of this themselves. If you celebrated overtly you might get a high fastball in your next plate appearance. The same went for virtually every sport in which I’ve participated. In tennis, believe it or not I played competitively in my youth, if you celebrated too much you’d get a tennis ball in your ear the next time you got close to the net.

Currently the NFL and the NCAA have rules in place about how much you are allowed to celebrate before incurring a penalty. The announcers spoke about wanting more excitement and celebrations in baseball, but also worried lines could be crossed.

It’s an interesting and difficult problem to solve. I actually agree there is far too much celebrating going on in sports these days. I think it does show a lack of respect for your opponents when you jump up and down to celebrate a lucky single or have a sack dance when your team is winning by twenty points.

Personally, I find all the celebrating intrusive and disrespectful but other people love the emotion involved. They, like the announcers, think sport needs more celebrating, more emotion. Who is right, if anyone?

I think it’s incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for a league to codify celebration rules. The more they try to do so, the greater imagination players show in pushing those boundaries. In addition, penalties for celebrations that affect the outcome of the game disturb me. It takes the result out of the hands of the players and puts it under the discretion of officials.

Every rule increases the burden on the officials and the more important the game, the less likely the regulation is to be enforced. Officials often put their whistles in their pockets as the stakes grow higher. Still, even then, how long before a championship game is greatly affected by an official meting out punishing for a celebration? Do any of us want that?

This is where my Libertarian ideology comes into play.

A critical analysis seems to indicate that there is no way to create effective celebration rules. That doing so creates further problems and doesn’t address the issue itself. Therefore, the answer is to simple let the players celebrate as they will. Let other players react as they will.

There are rules about delaying the game and that is enough.

I’ll be annoyed by nonsensical celebrations after minor successes while others will be upset by a pitcher who throws a high, hard one after such revelry. We can’t have everything we want in life and this rush to create rules that will supposedly fix things, but instead make them worse, is not the answer.

Tom Liberman

Strict Rules at the Masters a Good Thing?

Posted on by

The-MastersThe Masters golf tournament just finished up with Sergio Garcia winning an epic battle with Justin Rose. Sergio has had a long and successful career but always fallen short in the Majors so it was quite wonderful to see him win and the emotion of the triumph. However, that’s not what I’m writing about today. As a Libertarian I want to examine the nature of the stringent rules for spectators at The Masters.

There are rules against using cell phones, rules against running, and plenty more. Spectators who violate the rules not only risk being removed from the grounds that day, but also losing their ticket forever. That’s right. Forever. The Masters tickets are strictly limited and the only way to get new ones is if someone else gives up their own. Thus breaking the rules carries serious consequences and most people do not do so.

Now that we know the consequences are serious I’ll turn my attention to the rules. Said regulations are certainly the purview of the people who run the Masters. They can make whatever rules they want.

In other, less popular, events such rules would likely drive away their audience and cut into their ticket sales.

Watching the Masters on television is rather pleasant because there are not as many spectators yelling banal encouragements or trying to distract the actual competitors.

The lesson to be learned here is important from a Libertarian perspective. Those who run the Masters created in environment in which many people want to participate. Television networks pay huge sums of money to broadcast the even. Advertisers pay even more money for the right to run commercials during the event. Spectators hope against hope to even have the possibility of getting tickets.

But there is something else to discuss as well. Prior to 1990 the club where the Masters is held, Augusta National Golf Club, did not allow black members. Prior to 2012 they did not allow women members. These policies threatened their audience. People were rightfully upset about such racist and misogynistic rules. Fewer people wanted tickets to the event. Fewer people wanted to watch on television. The event itself, if they continued such policies, risked serious reduction of revenue. Even players began to at least think about not attending in protest over such rules.

The government did not force Augusta to change their policies. Several members resigned. Corporate sponsors faced heavy criticism from those who consumed their products and put pressure on August as well. It became in Augusta’s self-interest to change their rules and they did.

We often rely on the government to right social wrongs but it is generally unreliable in such matters. There will always be those who hold racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and other vile views. They are often in positions where they can discriminate. People can effect change where the government is powerless. Something to keep in mind.

Tom Liberman

Nick Saban Rants about Summer Camps but it’s Really all about being a Libertarian

Posted on by

Nick-SabanI just read an interesting story at ESPN about how Nick Saban gave a press conference in which he is quite angry. The main rant seems to involve assumptions about his offensive plans for the upcoming season but later he gets to a topic that touches this Libertarian’s heartstrings. Rules created to prevent some perceived wrong that end up hurting far more people than they help.

At issue is my favorite target, the NCAA. College football teams like Alabama hold summer camps for young players. This allows said teams to gain personal relationships with players that often translate to scholarships at a later date. The NCAA just passed a rule that prevents high school coaches from helping at such camps.

Here’s why the rule was made. Coaches like Saban, and more particularly Jim Harbaugh at Michigan, held these camps and paid these high school coaches to help. The high school coaches have strong influence over their players. The hope being that said coach will recommend to their star players they take scholarship offers from Alabama and Michigan.

This example strikes directly to the heart of my problem with such rules. Yes, this system does curry favor from high school coaches to particular colleges. The question we must always ask is: What is the result of the proposed rule, law, or regulation. That is what Saban is talking about when he says:

And we pass some rule that everybody has to live with, or some law, where the consequences mess up a lot of other things. We do it all the time. We’re doing it right now. The NCAA is doing it. We’re going to change the way we have summer camps. We can’t have high school coaches working summer camps. I mean, it’s the most ridiculous thing that I’ve ever seen. It is what it is and whatever they do, they do.

In this case the high school coaches are still generally going to be favorable to local colleges because of ongoing relationships so the rule itself really doesn’t solve the problem.

Now the coaches won’t be able to bring their players to the camp so some third party is going to do it. Perhaps a family member, an agent, a want-to-be agent, a friend with dollar signs in their eyes, whatever. That issue isn’t solved, just shifted to a new source. In addition someone is going to have to coach those camps. They are happening regardless of the new rule. That someone is likely going to be less qualified than the coach, this hurts the young players. The coach loses as well because teaching at these camps gives them invaluable experience.

Perhaps this seems like a nothing issue to most people but it is a microcosm of Washington D.C., your statehouse, your municipality.

We pass laws with the best of intentions but end up hurting not only the very people such rules are intended to protect, but a host of other people as well.

Nick Saban in his rant is not just talking about these camps. He’s talking about the political world we endure today. And he’s right.

He’s absolutely right.

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

Removing Competition the Immigration Way

Posted on by

senator-tom-cottonSenators Tom Cotton and David Perdue don’t like competition. Spin it how you will but this Libertarian will not stand silent. They are wrong and somebody needs to tell them. I think I’m the guy!

The situation is relatively simple. With the election of Donald Trump a wave of Protectionist policies have swept through Congress. Cotton and Perdue want to limit the number of immigrants coming into this country annually from one million to half that. Why?

In their words: Cotton said his goal was to stop competition that lowers wages for workers without high school or college degrees. “Unless we reverse this trend, we are going to create a near-permanent underclass for whom the American dream is always just out of reach,”

Because reducing competition always makes things better, right, Senators? That’s the American way or at least the modern American way. Reduce competition by making laws that benefit one group over another.

They aren’t even apologizing for it. Making up some wild story to excuse it. Nope, we want to eliminate competition so United States citizens who can’t hold down a decent job have a better chance to do so. And the comments section is filled with cheers. Yay! Let’s keep those dirty foreigners from stealing our jobs.

Perhaps they wouldn’t take your jobs if you were willing to work harder but I guess that’s a mantra from bygone days. Yes, the jobs that immigrants do suck and don’t pay a lot. They are hard. I wouldn’t want to do it so instead I work in IT making a nice salary doing things that are not back-breaking. Maybe rather than complaining that someone is stealing your job you should better yourself? Get an education. Work harder. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps as we used to say around here.

Nope. Gone. See ya. How ’bout we get rid of the competition. That’s the sure-fire path to success, ain’t it, Senators Cotton and Perdue? Let’s Make America Great Again by getting rid of the people who do the job best. That’ll work.

It’s a bit disheartening to be a Libertarian these days. But I’m not giving up!

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

The Libertarian Chewing Gum Conundrum

Posted on by

Chewing-Gum-RemovalToday I blog about chewing gum. Yep, chewing gum. It all started when I read about President Trump’s press secretary’s chewing habits. My natural curiosity led me to discover a lot of interesting things about chewing gum.

Eventually I got to the section at Wikipedia about how discarded chewing gum is a big nuisance. I don’t have to tell anyone who has stepped in the mess and had to remove it. Or anyone who touched the disgusting blob under a table. Or any who has to clean it up. I think I’d be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t find discarded chewing gum to be disgusting and a nuisance. At my upscale gym I occasionally see a piece in the urinal and I literally want to find the person who did it and punch them in the mouth.

Someone has to clean that, you dick. It takes time and effort to clean up and that means it takes money.

Many schools ban it for this reason alone and one country, Singapore, has banned it completely. Their public spaces and sidewalks must be a joy although I’ve never experienced them myself.

This all brings me to the conundrum. I’m a Libertarian. If people want to chew gum, more power to them. If they want to swallow it, go right ahead. But, by golly, I don’t want it under the table I’m sitting at while having dinner. I don’t want part of the price of my dinner being to have someone clean up the chewing gum from the table. I don’t want my tax dollars going to cleaning expenses.

To prevent people from disposing of their chewing gum improperly means ridiculous laws. It means law enforcement officers training their keen eyes on rude gum chewers who do not dispose in an acceptable way. It means fining people, potentially arresting them, for disposing of gum under a table. That’s not exactly up my Libertarian alley.

If we don’t have laws to keep people from sticking it under the table then some, asshole, people are going to continue right along doing it. What to do?

Certainly teach children how rude is this behavior. Certainly shame anyone you witness doing it. But laws? Regulations? Even just a small fine rankles my ideology. I don’t like the idea of police handing out tickets for such actions.

Make them clean it themselves? That again requires vigilant officers on patrol and I’m not sure I approve.

Sometimes it’s hard to be a Libertarian. Especially if you’ve got gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe.

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

Mexican Wall and Remittance Seizures

Posted on by

us-mexico-border-fenceWith the election of Donald Trump the idea of building a long wall along various places on the border between Mexico and the United States is being seriously discussed. The primary method of paying for this is something being called Remittance Seizures. I call it stealing.

The idea is that people send money to Mexico from that which they earn in the United States. Someone working in the United States earns money. They frugally save some of that money. They send it back to their friends or family in Mexico. What is being proposed is that the government simply takes a percentage of that money. That’s theft, plain and simple. There’s no other word for it.

The United States government is going to spend a bunch of money building something but they don’t want to use general tax dollars for the purpose, so they steal the money from a particular group of people hoping that the rest of the country will shrug and say, “well, it’s not my money they are stealing.”

If the federal government is allowed to do this, how long do you think before state and local governments start to fund their own little projects by stealing from you?

In my community of Libertarian and Anarchists there is a mantra that taxation is theft and there is some truth to that idea but I don’t want to muddy the crystal clear waters of this plan. If you want to propose and enact a tax in order to get money to build the wall I think it’s stupid but at least it’s legal, it’s not stealing.

This proposal is an extension of government power that should frighten everyone. This is no different than if you built a fence around your property and then went to your neighbors and took part of their paycheck to pay for it. It’s madness.

I’m not totally opposed to taxes. I drive on roads and a gas or mileage tax to pay for upkeep of the road makes sense. This is simply targeting a minority group and taking their money to pay for something they don’t use and certainly don’t want. It’s theft. I can’t say it more simply. it’s stealing from a group because you can. It’s a despicable proposal.

The words Republican and Conservative have become antonyms in this day and age. It’s shocking to this Libertarian.

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

Adults without Children to be Banned from Playgrounds in L.A.

Posted on by

mitch-farrell-ban-single-adults-playgrounds-laAh, the familiar refrain of politicians explaining why they want to take away our freedom. It’s so the children will be safe. It’s all for the children. Chirp, chirp, chirp.

The city of Los Angeles is considering banning adults without children from playgrounds.

Ok, first the real reason for the ban. They want an excuse to roust homeless people. But that’s beside the point. Let’s pretend that the city does want to actually protect children. Why is this potential law so egregious?

What good will it do? Are children actually kidnapped and attacked while they are in playgrounds? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of such a case in my life but that doesn’t mean it is impossible. The vast majority of child kidnappings are perpetrated by relatives, the very people who would have every right to be at the playground. So, not much help either way.

What harm will it do? It will prevent me from walking through parks in my area. Back when I was playing Pokémon Go I was walking around quite a bit and I still like to walk rather than drive when feasible. I walk through parks and playgrounds at times. Lots of people go to the bathroom and drink from water fountains located in such locations. Several men were given citations in New York for playing chess at a table designed specifically for that purpose.

So the law will do nothing to make playgrounds safer and will be a minor inconvenience to park visitors. What’s the big deal?

Freedom is the big deal. Damn it. Pardon my language. But people, freedom.

Every little bit of ridiculous authority we cede to the state in the name of false safety is another step we take toward tyranny.

It’s my freedom that you’re taking with your misguided laws. I’m a single guy and I sometimes like to take walks. Is it a lot freedom? No. But even at that it’s too much. Too much!

Say no to the Mitch Farrell’s of the world.

It’s easy to give away someone else’s freedom for the illusion of safety. Don’t do it.

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

Christmas Truce a Libertarian Anthem

Posted on by
Christmast-truce

Ten million men died. Another twenty-seven million were injured or went missing. World War I. In the midst of this unfathomable horror came the Christmas Truce.

Perhaps it was humanity. Maybe just decency. Some call it a miracle. I say, call it what you will. I call it The Libertarian Holiday. This was a moment in history in which men of different nations, for a brief moment, embraced the world as it would be under a Libertarian Utopia.

That moment. Those men, few if any are still alive, represent everything for which I stand. And they represent it in a way, under circumstances, under insanity, which I will never know.

Stop the Killing

These men decided to stop killing each other. They decided to cross over lines and exchange gifts. To tell each other about themselves. To share common ground beyond the vile Nation State. Beyond the politicians who would have them hate and kill one another. To find that which they shared.

And that is everything I attempt to discuss in my blogs and my novels. Why do Republicans hate Democrats? Why do Christians hate Muslims? I don’t think it’s about politics. About religion. It’s about those who fear people of like interests enjoying each other’s company despite artificial divides. It’s about two people who share an interest. Dungeons and Dragons. Model Trains. Nothing else matters.

Worry less about your nation. Concern yourself less with your religion. Don’t get hung up on your political party. Spend time with those who enjoy doing the same thing as you. That is all. That is the Libertarian Utopia.

Frightened Leaders

After the Christmas Truce of 1914 the powers that were forbade it. They issued strict orders that it should not occur again. The powers that be are your enemy. Those who share your interests are your allies. It matters nothing nation, religion, political party.

Those who tell you differently are manipulating you. Using you. Twisting you to their own ends. Be free, my brothers and sisters. Become free.

Stay free. Be a Libertarian.

December 25th. Christmas to you. Freedom to me.

Tom Liberman

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

Why is Christian McCaffrey Skipping the Sun Bowl?

Posted on by

Christian-McCaffreyThere’s a big story in the sports world and it’s generating a lot of passion on both sides of the proverbial ball. One of the top college running backs, Christian McCaffrey of Stanford, has decided not to play in the Sun Bowl. People seem to be of two minds and both express their point of view with vigor.

One side seems to think that McCaffrey has betrayed his teammates, his fans, his coaches, and the people who will attend the game, for which he was a star attraction. The other expresses the idea that a large payday awaits him in the NFL and avoiding injury in the game could potentially save him a lot of money. I think both sides have their merits but what I’d like to discuss first is the reason McCaffrey has chosen this course of action.

The root of the issue is certainly money. Many players have been injured in such games in the past, this is fact. The position you are drafted when entering the NFL greatly effects the amount of money you make. A first five picks gets a contract worth approximately $8 million more than someone taken eight picks later. That’s a lot of money. That’s what is driving McCaffrey’s decision. If he gets even modestly hurt at the Sun Bowl he could easily drop that many places in the draft. If severely hurt it could be much more.

McCaffrey is enumerated nothing for his participation in the Sun Bowl which pays the participating schools over $4 million. That money comes from television contracts, ticket sales, sponsorship, and other sources. During the week of the game players for both sides will participate in many events which generate money for various establishments in the region. They will sit at tables where people have paid large amounts to be seated near them. They will sign memorabilia that is auctioned for more money. They will be paid nothing for all of this.

This stark contrast in the amount of money McCaffrey gets at college as compared to what he gets after college drives his decision; for good or ill. We cannot ignore the reality of the world. Whether we like these facts or not is irrelevant. Perhaps we think professional players get too much money. Maybe we think college players should get more.

I am not in disagreement with either side of this debate. Leaving his teammates, coaches, and fans without his services in this final game is not a nice thing to do. Risking $8 million or more to play in a game that gives you nothing except potentially negatives consequences seems like a darned bad idea.

What I know as a Libertarian is that McCaffrey is the one who gets to make the decision. Not me. He should do what is best for him. As should we all.

I leave with a final poll. Think about it for a moment before answering.

If the difference between playing and sitting was potentially more than $8 million. What would you do?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Is Your Grocer Stealing from You? Probably.

Posted on by

grocer-weigh-shortA friend of mine recently posted on Facebook that she’s been weighing her food of late and noticed a trend. Certain grocers systematically short you on weight. Let’s say you purchase a pound of turkey but when you put it on the scale it is .97 lbs. While .03 lbs is a small amount, it adds up over thousands and millions of purchases.

The state of New York recently fined Whole Foods for this practice. The behavior essentially steals a few pennies from consumers each time they make a purchase. If the mistake is random and sometimes the weight is over and sometimes it is under then it should all balance out in the end. However, if the mistake is systematically lower, then consumers are being charged for a huge amount of product they have not purchased. This is stealing. Plain and simple.

If the weight is short again and it again it proves the butcher or whichever employee or machine is doing the packaging is fully capable of measuring accurately and chooses to put in less. This is a conscious and measured decision to steal with the hope that no one will really care enough about the tiny difference to complain. There is no excuse for this behavior. It is illegal and fines of $500,000 like that which the state of New York imposed on Whole Foods is one way to stop it. This method relies on a state that is willing to prosecute. This is a big assumption. Rather than change their practices it might well be in the financial interest of the grocer to simply give out piles of money to politicians in the hopes of garnering favor. It happens all the time.

Another way, a better way, a more Libertarian way, would be to file charges against the person, not the corporate entity, who packaged the meat or the person who programmed the machine that is packaging the item. If that person is found guilty of theft then I find it reasonable to assume that all the other people who are engaging in this practice will stop. I think even just the act of filing charges against individuals would be enough to change the practice nationwide. A few dozen cases of consumers taking matters into their own hands would have a profound effect.

What individual is willing to risk prison for so little personal gain? I do not deny this path is more difficult than relying on the state. We have to hire a lawyer. We have to go through a time-consuming process. But I think the solution is better for everyone. Honest grocers. People buying and packaging.

This is my interpretation of what it means to be a Libertarian in a nutshell. Don’t rely on an inherently unreliable state to protect you. Don’t sue your grocery store. Charge the person who is stealing from you. The person who perpetrated the crime. Not the faceless corporation. This forces personal responsibility upon society. And that is a good thing.

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