Category Archives: Libertarian

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

The Duterte Blueprint to Ensure a Terrorist State

Posted on by

president-rodrigo-duterteThere’s a politically fascinating situation going on in the Philippines that I find instructive in the nature of the state in regards to freedom and safety.

A fellow named Rodrigo Duterte was elected as president of the Philippines on a platform of eradicating drug users and dealers on the island. As mayor he at least allowed, if not aided, vigilante groups in beating and murdering drug dealers and users, including children. As president he has continued those policies nationwide. He has also largely banned smoking in the Philippines. In his latest speech he promised to suspend legal protections if terrorist activities continue on the island. That’s what I find so interesting.

Duterte is applauded by those who wish to fight terrorism and drug abuse. They love a “hard-line” policy where those who are suspected of such crimes are arrested and punished severely, often times suspending laws designed to protect citizens in order to do so. We see a similar attitude the world over. Kill the drug dealers that are preying on our children. Kill anyone we suspect of terrorist ties regardless of legal protections. The normal rules do not apply. We must suspend the laws in order to promote our safety.

As a Libertarian I am amused.

Duterte’s actions not only fail to protect the people of the Philippines from drugs and terrorists but actively make the problems worse. This is a counter-intuitive concept to be certain. How can locking up suspected drug dealers, users, and terrorists encourage them? Easy. The laws we have that protect the few who might well be guilty of being drug users and terrorists also protect the many who are not. When we suspend those laws people who are not terrorists, not drug dealers, and not drug users are imprisoned indiscriminately by government agents. Those people have friends and families. When the legal protections are removed we empower sadistic government employees who use their unfettered power to punish their personal and business foes. It is inevitable.

For every drug dealer Duterte orders killed there is an innocent who suffers the same fate. The people of a nation begin to realize they have no legal protections. That the government can and will take what they want, when they want, from whomever they want. It starts with the poor who have no advocates but it always spreads. Soon the government is taking over businesses for the money they will generate. Soon they are imprisoning political enemies.

When the people have no legal recourse they resort to illegal methods. Terrorism.

This is the juxtaposition between advocating tough laws and the reality such legislation creates.

If the people continue to allows such behavior from their political leaders then the nation will inevitably slide toward dictatorship. As more and more people clamor against an oppressive government, said government resorts to more extreme measures to put them down, thus creating more dissidents.

Only when people have real freedom does government for the people and by the people function properly.

Freedom is free, it’s just not safe. Terrorists and drug dealers must be afforded the same protections we demand for law-abiding citizens. That means bad things sometimes happen. The alternative is that worse things happen.

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

We will soon be Immortal Giants Astride the Galaxy

Posted on by

galaxyWith the recent election finally ending I wanted to interject a note of madness into the many and strident conversations taking place. It just doesn’t matter. Clinton or Trump or Johnson. None can stop the storm that is coming. I see the future so clearly.

The day will soon be here when advances in medicine will make people all but immortal. Anything broken will be fixed with genetic repair done by fantastical repair cells or even more marvelous nanorobots.

Technological breakthroughs will clean the water and air.

Transportations breakthroughs will take us around the globe in a few hours.

Enormous amounts of energy will be all but free and thus the world will be green. There will be more than enough food and water for everyone. Energy not a problem? Two hydrogens and an oxygen and the world is green. No more hunger or thirst.

The religion/nation state? Gone. It’s in the last paroxysms of life. Cling to it all you want but it is a dead thing.

With abundant energy, food, and limitless health people will be free. Free to focus on their passions. Building model trains. Playing dungeons and dragons. Watching an endless stream of entertainment created by an equally endless stream of entertainers. All empowered by technology.

When no one is hungry. When no one is without shelter. When no one is mentally ill. There will be no one to hate. There will be no nations. Just groups of friends doing things they enjoy with each other.

There will be no one to build things you claim? Ha. We love to build. We love nothing more than to create and to accomplish. That is what brings us happiness. It will be a unimaginable age.

A Utopia so grand it is beyond my imagination and yet I see it. Coming, inexorably. It cannot be stopped.

We will be immortal giants astride the galaxy.

The pain you feel at an election loss is a grain of sand in your shoe. The joy you feel at an election win is a pleasant wind on a warm day. They are nothing. Soon you will see. Soon you will know.

Your children will laugh at your foolishness but love you all the same.

Tom Liberman

How Yasir Salem will Make America Great Again

Posted on by

yasir-salemI made my weekly (sometimes more) trek down to the corner bar and it was a slow sports day. The Cardinals won an afternoon game and France defeated Germany in the Euros early in the day. So what was showing on the television? Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest.

The contestants were brought to the stage with all the fanfare of a NFL game and one of them caught my eye. Yasir Salem.

Mr. Salem is clearly of Arabic descent and was decked out in the stars and stripes as he ran to the stage and preened before the adoring crowd.

Yasir didn’t finish in the top four but that’s ok by me.

What made the United States of America great in the first place is everything Mr. Salem represents.

What is your religion? Who cares.

What is your skin color? Who cares.

What is your sex? Who cares.

Can you eat more hot dogs than the other guy, hell ya. That’s what matters. That spirit represents exactly why this country achieved greatness in the first place.

Let’s try not to forget it.

I’m telling you now and I’ll tell you tomorrow. Everything Mr. Salem represents is what will make America Great Again far more than any politician you will vote for in November.

Well done, sir. Well done.

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

 

Mars Candy – Doing What’s Right Just Because

Posted on by

mm-candyI just read an absolutely fascinating article about Mars Candy. It states that Mars is looking to reduce the presence of their world famous M&M Brand candy in third party products like McDonald’s McFlurry because of concerns that people are eating too much sugar.

It’s why they are doing this that makes this Libertarian beam with happiness. You see, Mars is a privately held company. They are not beholden to stock holders. The reduction of sugar is not being done because the government is forcing them to do it. They are doing it because they are concerned about their customers, as well they should be.

Mars has a history of this behavior so it’s not a one time publicity stunt. Mars was the first candy company to put sugar amounts and calories on the packaging of their product. Not because the government told them to do it but because they wanted their customers to be aware of how much sugar they were consuming!

In 2013 Mars voluntarily removed “King Sized” candy bars from their product lines and limited the amount of calories to any single bar at 250. Again, not because any politician made them do it. Because they are concerned their customers are eating too much sugar and adversely effecting their health. From a candy company!

These sorts of moves cannot be easy for a company like Mars to consider. Too often we look at short term economic strategies. Mars wants their candy loving customers to live longer and buy more product during that lifetime! They have a long-term strategy that is not only good for the company but good for their customers, which makes complete sense.

Mars advises customers to consume their products modestly and as a treat!

Mars has promised to match health guidelines for sugar intake by limiting sugar in their products.

By golly, three hearty huzzahs for Victoria Mars and those who work for her company!

I urge all my friends to go out and buy some Mars candy remembering to consume it as an occasional treat. Live long, my friends.

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

Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead – Libertarian Movie Review

Posted on by

Christina-Applegate-in-Dont-Tell-Mom-the-Babysitters-DeadI was out and about the other night and an attractive woman sat next to me with her date. During the course of their conversation, to which I was listening vaguely, she mentioned a Christina Applegate movie about babysitting and it reminded me of an underrated gem. Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s dead. So, of course, it’s time for a Libertarian Movie Review.

The Story

In the movie Applegate’s character, Sue Ellen, is the eldest of five siblings left home under the care of an elderly babysitter while her mother takes a summer vacation to Australia. Trouble ensues when the babysitter dies and the teens have no money to support themselves. Rather than call their mother they decide to try to make it on their own.

Sue Ellen has aspirations of a career in the fashion industry but takes a minimum wage job in fast food. She soon quits because she is being treated horribly by a manager. She then creates a false resume hoping to get a job as a receptionist at a fashion house. Impressed by the resume, a company executive hires Sue Ellen as an assistant.

Sue Ellen excels at her job and impresses her boss although also gains the enmity of a jealous co-worker. Meanwhile her marijuana obsessed brother is forced to feed the family on a small budget and finds that he loves cooking.

Eventually Sue Ellen ends up hosting an important fashion party for the struggling company. Her stoner brother provides an elegant dining experience while her younger siblings help as best the can.

In the end she is found out by her conniving and less competent co-worker and also the return of her mother. Rose, the executive played by Joanna Cassidy, is not dismayed and offers Sue Ellen a permanent job. Sue Ellen refuses but is promised by her now former boss help in gaining admittance to a prestigious college.

Meanwhile her brother and other siblings all gain by the experience and become the better for it.

Why it Works

From a Libertarian perspective there is a lot to like about this movie. Sue Ellen wants a career in fashion and refuses to settle for a fast food job with a terrible manager. She lies on her resume and aims high. Once on the job she solves problems creatively and effectively despite sabotage from a co-worker. Her brother is wasting his life smoking marijuana but stumbles upon a career that peaks his interest and goes for it with as much gusto as Sue Ellen. When Sue Ellen is discovered she admits her guilt to all and is willing to accept the consequences.

Finally, and I think in one of the most important scenes in the movie, when Sue Ellen is found out by Rose all is not lost. Certainly Sue Ellen did wrong by writing a false resume but once in the position she achieved astounding success. Rose recognizes this and does not punish Sue Ellen. She instead rewards her.

Had Sue Ellen failed at her job then punishment is certainly deserved but, in this case, she did not. Sue Ellen took a chance, broke a rule, and found tremendous success in a field she loves. She also helped her brother find his way and her younger siblings as well.

Five Freedoms

I give it a rating of Five Freedoms. A hidden gem worth watching by everyone, not just Libertarians.

Tom Liberman

Online Poker is a Life of Hard Work and Little Money – so Why do it?

Posted on by

jason-sommerville-pokerI’ve been watching people play poker on twitch.tv lately it’s got me thinking about some things.

I started watching a fellow named Jason Somerville and then also began to follow two other players, Lex Veldhuis and Parker Talbot. All three are extraordinarily good players and also entertaining personalities who explain their decisions in an informative way. Somerville in particular is a highly watched streamer who does an exceptional job teaching the game and also entertaining the audience.

So why the blog? Good question. After watching all three of these very strong poker players play for many hours I realized they aren’t winning much money and on many days losing money. That’s not to say they aren’t making money by the end of the year but what I saw was them playing for many, many hours in long tournaments with thousands of players (called Grinding in poker vernacular) for a small return on their hours of investment.

Then, for a change, I watched a few other plays who clearly did not possess the skill or temperament of Somerville, Veldhuis, and Talbot. Not only were they spending hours and hours playing, they were largely losing money! And quite happily I might add.

The first lesson I took from all this is that I have no business sitting at an online poker table. Even if I’m at a small stake tournament, some can be entered for as little as a dime, I’d merely be spending a lot of time and losing money. I have literally no chance to win against more skilled opponents. The more I would play, the more I would lose.

It quickly became clear to me that the vast majority of people playing poker online are either losing money or earning money at a rate far below any minimum wage job. So why are tens of thousands, if not more, people gleefully doing so?

I think it can be argued that the allure of riches plays a part but I don’t think that’s the primary reason so many people are attracted to online poker. While the riches are certainly there it is not the same as purchasing a lottery ticket. In order to get the riches hard work is required.

What I think is going on is much deeper. It taps into why I’m a Libertarian and also into very nature of what it is to be human. We want to be free. We want to work hard at something we enjoy and be rewarded for doing so. Those things bring us happiness and joy.

After watching Somerville, Veldhuis, and Talbot for many hours some things became very clear to me. All three are not simply dolts who happen to be good at poker. All three are highly intelligent and thoughtful. They spoke of subjects beyond poker with strong words and rational logic. It is clear to me that all three would be successful in whatever endeavor they chose, they just happened to have picked a field they enjoy and at which they excel. Wise choices, my friends.

And a shining example for the rest of us.

Do what you love. Work hard at it. Be pragmatic in your decisions. You’ll be happy, perhaps rich or perhaps not.

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

Harambe the Gorilla and Lessons to be Learned

Posted on by

harambe-GorillaA tragic incident occurred recently in Cincinnati that is making headlines and evoking passionate debate among many people.

A young boy willfully climbed into the gorilla pen at the Cincinnati zoo and when a male gorilla named Harambe started to become more aggressive, the zoo’s Dangerous Animal Response team shot and killed the gorilla.

Passions are running high among those who think the zoo did the right thing and those who think the zoo handled the situation improperly. One of the positions I see being taken is that the zoo is responsible for the enclosure not being secure enough to prevent entry and they are to blame. That all the enclosures must be designed to prevent anyone from entering. That’s the argument I’d like to look at today.

What I want to talk about today, Memorial Day, is the commonly stated belief that Freedom isn’t Free. I disagree with that idea. I think Freedom is Free. There is nothing more free in this world than freedom. Don’t get me wrong. I well understand that other people desire to take away my freedom. Those other people include both foreign and domestic enemies and my own government. I understand that to protect my freedom people must make sacrifices. I do not disregard the sacrifices made in order to protect me and others.

That being said, Freedom is mostly certainly free. It’s just quite dangerous. It might be possible to make every zoo enclosure more difficult to penetrate but there is no way to have a zoo and also have it so that a determined visitor cannot gain access to an exhibit. It is in the nature of a zoo where wild and dangerous animals are kept that there will be danger. Certainly the zoo should make efforts to keep the enclosures and wild animals separate from the visitors but if we want to have zoos at all, we must face that fact that a determined child or adult might be able to put themselves in danger. That’s freedom.

We could make it more safe, certainly. We could make zoos illegal altogether. We could insist that zoos spend astronomical sums of money to enclose every exhibit in bullet proof glass.

We could remove all traffic signals and thus be more free to drive as we will without restrictions. Or we could pass more and more traffic laws. We could put monitors in cars to prevent any sort of dangerous driving. The choice between freedom and safety is a serious one.

Those who wish to take our freedom often guise their desires with soothing words about only doing it to protect us.

My point is that we must accept danger if we love freedom. We must understand that terrible things can happen. That the government and the zoo cannot completely prevent horrible outcomes. We must mourn the death of Harambe. We must accept the danger if we are to remain free.

The alternative is to be perfectly safe at all times … in our locked and hermetically sealed chamber.

What will you choose?

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

The System isn’t Always Rigged – Libertarian Convention

Posted on by

banner_2016_libertarian_convention-minAs many of my democratic and republican friends lament the “rigged” system in which a series of complex rules bind or do not bind delegates to a particular candidate during their party’s nomination process, another system was on display this weekend in Orlando, Florida.

My party, the Libertarians had their convention. You probably didn’t hear much about it for a number of a reasons. One reason is that Libertarian candidates do not generate many votes, they hold no national offices, and precious few state positions. There is another reason and one I’d like to offer up as a contrast between the way the Republican and Democrats do things as compared to Libertarians.

We’ve had a long nomination cycle, which continues, in which voters in each state and territory of the union vote for candidates. Delegates then cast their vote for the candidate. The Republicans and Democrats have complex rules about how delegates can vote and many are bound to the choices the voters made. These rules are changed and modified each year, largely in an attempt to get a particular candidate nominated. Look up the Ron Paul rule for an example.

At the Libertarian Convention a delegate is bound only by her or his conscience. There is no state by state vote. Rules are not arranged to ensure a particular candidate is guaranteed victory or an upstart is shunted to the back of the room. The Libertarian Convention almost always has a Contested Convention. That is a convention in which none of the candidates receives 50% of the vote. Thus diplomacy comes into play in vote after vote until a consensus is finally reached.

In a Libertarian Convention delegates are not barred if they represent a candidate who stands little chance of winning. Delegates feel free to boo the candidates who express ideas with which they disagree. The room is not filled with flag-waving non-delegates designed give the impression of unity and support. Libertarians welcome dissent. Like in life, we embrace opposition for it is only by testing ourselves that we reach our full potential. It is only by listening to alternate ideas that we come to know all our options.

Now you know how we do things. Which system do you think is best?

Is it better to have bound delegates and many rules or unbound delegates who vote their conscience?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

It’s not the Beard, it’s the Rule – Andrew Jones Graduation

Posted on by

Andrew-Jones-beardThere’s a story all over the news this morning about a young man who was not allowed to participate in the graduation ceremony with his class because he had a beard.

There seem to be largely two takes on the story.

1. A rule is a rule and Andrew Jones should have followed the rule. He was given a chance to shave his beard but refused.

2. He was allowed to wear his beard all year long at school but the district decided to enforce the rule only at the graduation, therefore the rule is being arbitrarily and unfairly applied.

I have a third opinion, no surprise. Why is there such a rule in the first place? What does a beard have to do with a public education? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against rules. No running with scissors. Why? Because you might take out your eye or stab someone else in a fall. No talking in class. Why? Because it prevents the teacher from communicating the lesson.

I’m also not pretending there is no reason for the rule. It has a very definite purpose. It is a rule created to show the students who is in charge. It is a rule designed to acclimate young minds to the idea that they must follow pointless guidelines instituted by small people who delight in their trivial taste of power. Who all but masturbate because they get to enforce their will upon a captive audience.

Jones attends Amite High School in the Tangipahoa Parish School System in Louisiana. Tangipahoa Superintendent Mark Kolwe insisted the rule was fine and they would enforce it the entire year in the future rather than selectively at graduation.

Yuck. Petty bureaucrats reveling in their power and enforcing their stupidity.

Mr. Jones. You graduated. You excelled during your time in high school. Small minds stole your moment to celebrate with your fellow students. I have a lesson for you. It won’t be the last time your inferiors try to bend you to their will with useless and petty rules. Sometimes you will be tempted to forgo you principles, to shave your beard, so that you might get along. My advice? Fuck them.

If you must give up things like a graduation ceremony in order to be true to yourself, you have won. You have defeated the reptiles of the world who hope to destroy you for the simple reason that you are better than they will ever be.

Success lies ahead. Keep on your path, Mr. Jones. Stay your course.

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

Chess versus Islam

Posted on by

ban-chess-muslimsI read a story from the Associated Press about a Twitter war that is raging because a prominent Saudi Arabian, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdelaziz Al Sheikh, declared that Muslims should not play chess.

No big deal? Just some religious kook making an outlandish statement? I disagree. For Al Sheikh to make this statement there is clearly backing for it in the fundamentalist Islamic world. Scholars have warned against the game in the past.

So why is this a big deal? Because many of the finest chess players in the world are from the Middle East and are Muslims. Chess originated in Asia and Muslims introduced the wonderful game to the western world. It has a long and important tradition in the Middle East and players are very dedicated to the game. Perhaps more dedicated to chess than to their religion.

And that’s important. It is also the way things should be. You should be more loyal to the things you like than to a religion or to a nation. That is the heart of the Libertarian political belief. We should associate with those who enjoy the same things as us, and let others do the same.

I don’t like playing with dolls but it’s not my business if you do. I love playing chess and spend my time watching chess videos and playing the game with acquaintances from all over the world. And it’s none of your business how much time I spend doing it! Nor would it be the business of any leader of whatever religion I happened to believe. I’m an Atheist for public record so it’s a moot point in today’s argument.

I happened to be born in the United States of America and a chess playing friend happened to be born in Iran. What is important is that we both enjoy playing chess. That is our bond and it has nothing to do with the circumstances of my birth or an edict from a ruler or religious leader. It is my choice to play chess with those who also enjoy the game.

I hope my chess playing friends, who happen to be Muslims, recognize this ridiculous statement for what it is. It’s simply an attempt to control them by restricting the things they love. Sound like anything governmental or religious leaders have done to you? Maybe you need new leaders or perhaps you should give up on the idea of an organized religion altogether.

That being said, religion itself is not the problem here, it is the twisting of power to control adherents that upsets me and hopefully some of my friends. If you believe in Allah, God, Lucifer, the Earth Mother, or any other deity, that’s cool. It’s your business and I don’t much care. Would that everyone else felt the same way.

I play at Lichess and GameKnot and my user name is tomlib. How about a nice game of chess?

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

Can you Commit Vehicular Manslaughter when you are not Driving?

Posted on by

causationA man named James Ryan is facing charges of vehicular manslaughter for starting a chain of events that ended in a police officer being killed.

The entire case revolves around a legal concept called Causation. If you are interested in all things legal I cannot recommend highly enough that you read the Causation article at Wikipedia. It is beyond fascinating but for those of you without the patience or inclination I’m going to summarize both the events and the legal case.

The incident occurred as follows: Ryan was driving while intoxicated and clipped another car on the expressway and then stopped while still on the highway. A following car then hit his car spinning it around. Officer Joseph Olivieri arrived on the scene and at some point had Ryan on the side of the road with his hands on a guard rail. At this time another car hit Ryan’s car and then Olivieri, killing him.

The legal concept of Causation is quite complex but basically relies on the idea that if someone commits an action there are often obvious ramifcations to that action and that person can be held legally responsible for those events.

The example in Wikipedia that I think sums up the situation pretty well describes hitting someone in the road and then leaving them there rather than removing them from danger. The person is then run over and killed by a third party. The injuries from the original accident were not life threatening. The person who committed the original crime is guilty by the principal of Causation because knowingly leaving a disabled person in the middle of the road is fairly obviously putting them in danger of being hit again.

However, if the person lying in the middle of the road is struck by lightning and killed, then the person who committed the original crime is not guilty by reasons of Causation.

Got all that?

Now to the case at hand. The prosecutors believe, and an Appeals Court decision agrees, that Ryan should have known that by driving drunk he could get in an accident. That this could bring the police. That police on the scene of an accident might be hit by another car.

This is, to my eyes, ridiculous. I’m not a lawyer or a judge. What Ryan did was drive drunk and cause an accident. That is the extent of his crime, a serious crime to be sure and for which he should face penalties.

If Ryan is convicted I see no reason why police could not charge virtually anyone with anything. There is not a single one of us who goes even a day without committing some sort of infraction be it speeding, jaywalking, rolling a stop sign, turning without signaling, switching lanes without signaling, or something of the ilk. Whatever other, more serious crime, happens in relation to that is something for which you could be charged.

These charges, filed and successfully appealed, are extraordinarily troubling to me.

I strongly suspect that most prosecutors would never attempt such legal maneuverings and the death of the officer likely prompted such over-reach in this case. But that is no assurance of safety for any of us.

Although we might find Ryan loathsome for driving while intoxicated and understand the pain of the family and friends of the officer killed, those are not reason enough to put a person in prison for up to twenty-five years for something he did not do.

Justice is an important concept and these charges do not serve it.

What do you think?

Should Ryan be Charged with Vehicular Manslaughter

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Tila Tequila, Cinnamon Nicole, and GoFundMe Idiocy

Posted on by

gofundmeI happened across two interesting stories today discussing GoFundMe campaigns. One involved a woman named Tila Tequila who needed money for a new apartment while a woman named Cinnamon Nicole used the Crowd Funding source to get living expenses after spending her savings on Powerball tickets.

The comments on the two stories are pretty predictable in that few people showed any sympathy toward Tequila or Nicole. Both women found themselves in difficult situations largely because of their own bad decisions.

The Nicole GoFundMe campaign was removed and she now claims the entire thing was a joke while the Tequila campaign reached its goal.

There are numerous incidents of people using Crowd Funding sites to get money for reasons that are less than savory. I found my reaction to these cases to be extraordinarily interesting from both a Libertarian perspective and a psychological one.

I want to be clear that I’m not, in this blog, talking about campaigns that are deceitful in their aims. In both of the situations mentioned above the women laid out why they needed the money honestly. There have certainly been cases of people claiming catastrophic illness or other tragedy in order to gain sympathy and donations. Such examples are fraudulent, clearly illegal, should be removed, and the perpetrators prosecuted.

When I first read the Tequila story I moved to the comments section thinking to add my own condemnation but then I noted the thousands of comments and tens of thousands of likes associated with those comments. That’s when I started thinking. Why should I care what Tequila does? Why does it bother me that she has made so many horrible decisions? Why does her cynical campaign annoy me? Why does it anger so many people? Why is it our business at all?

Why couldn’t I shake my head at the disaster of the decisions that led to the GoFundMe campaigns and forget about it?

Why is it that I, and so many others, eagerly want to judge, to condemn, to lash out?

I think it is because doing so makes me feel better about myself. By pointing out the failures in others I somehow reassure myself that I’m a better person. I make good decisions and wouldn’t stoop to such depths. I’m a good man, by golly.

And I think such thoughts prove that I am not as good as I suppose. If I was truly confident in my wonderfulness I suspect I would not feel the urge to condemn Tequila. I would merely note the story and move along with my life. If someone asked me about her specifically I would certainly give my opinion but this urge to display to everyone else how much better a human being am I than Tequila is my failing.

It’s a failing of a fundamental nature that I think speaks directly to being a Libertarian, or at least my interpretation of being one. I should be focused on my actions. When someone else does something that has no effect on me, not only should I not care, but I shouldn’t even really much think about it.

My life is my own to lead and yours is yours.

I’m of the opinion that the world would be a much better place if we could all follow this philosophy a bit more. This attitude is hardly an easy one to pursue but it is a worthwhile thing to attempt.

I’ll be doing my best. Will you?

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

If Everyone was a Millionaire what would Happen?

Posted on by

powerball-meme-failThere’s been an interesting meme making the rounds about the Powerball Jackpot of $1.4 billion and how it could be divided up among all the people living in the United States. It’s fundamentally wrong in that the amount posted, $4.33 million, is an error. It would actually be on $4.33. That aside, I noted several of my friends on Facebook suggesting that if everyone was a millionaire economic ruin would follow.

That’s the idea I want to examine today.

What if everyone in the nation, perhaps even the world, had enough money to buy most of the things they need with the exception of luxury items.

The theory my friends on Facebook have is that these people would never work again. They’d simply invest the money and live off the interest while eating, sleeping, and otherwise occupying themselves. The problem being that if they wanted to play a round of golf all the people that work at the golf course wouldn’t be there. There would be no one to get out the carts, no one to take their payment, no one to mow the grass, no one to weed, no one to do anything. All those people would have retired as well.

What incentive is there to work if not to provide basic economic needs? If you have food, utilities, entertainment, and other things, why would you labor?

It’s a fair question and I think the answer lies within our nature. I’m of the opinion that we don’t do things simply to have enough food. There is a deeper yearning within and that is to achieve things. That is the underlying foundation of happiness. When we achieve we are happy. Certainly money allows us to purchase things that make life more comfortable and acts as an incentive but it is only a shadow of the real thing that drives us.

As modern, so-called Western, culture has made people wealthier it has not stopped that drive to achieve but in many ways fueled it. Poor people in poverty stricken nations have far less than their equivalents in wealthy nations. We’ve seen the definition of poor radically change as wealth has increased but we have not seen a drop in a desire to work.

But there is a danger and I think that it comes from our worship of money as opposed to achievement. When we place wealth on a golden pedestal we fool people into thinking that money is the goal. It is not. The goal is happiness and we get there by doing things well. We get paid because we do things well and thus can afford more luxuries, this is true, and I’m not arguing against giving achievers more money with which to buy things. I’m just arguing that the emphasis on which we often put the two is wrong.

Achievement is the goal. Happiness, money, comfort, and success are the results.

If we make achievement the first priority then wealth, for everyone, naturally follows.

As energy becomes cheap and readily available, soon enough everyone in the world will have their basic needs met without having to work. I’m of the opinion this will not lead to stagnation and ruin but to an age where humanity achieves things heretofore all but unimaginable.

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

Hawaii Raises Age to Purchase Cigarettes to 21

Posted on by

hawaii-smoking-age-banIt’s wearisome being a Libertarian at times and when I read that Hawaii raised the age required to smoke or purchase cigarettes to 21, I sadly shook my head.

What’s the point of writing yet another blog about how passing such laws creates serious problems and solves nothing? The War on Drugs. Prohibition. Laws against a particular type of weapon. I suppose I could launch into a dissertation on the law of Supply and Demand but you already know about that.

Everybody, on the two main sides of the political spectrum, already understands. Republicans know that laws banning particular weapons hurt more than they help. Democrats know that passing laws against particular brands of drugs cause far more damage than the problem the purport to solve.

Everyone already knows. They know in Hawaii that their stupid ban won’t work. Then know it will cause more problems than it solves.

So why do we continue to see more and more laws? Why is it becoming increasingly difficult to lead your life free of threat from arrest by authorities?

I could rage against the prison for profit system. I could tell you how local governments make much of their money not from direct taxes but from issuing citations to their citizens. But you already know all that. I could tell how the police state puts more power into the hands of despots who love nothing more than telling other people how to conduct their lives. How such laws don’t make us safer, how they don’t protect our precious youth, how they endanger all us, how such policies embolden and empower our real enemies, despots, not terrorists.

Yes, terrorists can kill some of us and we need be wary of them but despots can destroy all the freedoms we enjoy. The more laws created to keep us safe the more power we hand to despots who slowly take our freedoms.

But, again, you know this. I cover no new territory. I make no stunning revelations.

An eighteen year old adult can choose whether they want to smoke a cigarette on their own. They don’t need a nanny state to save them from themselves. You know this. You absolutely know this is true.

I have some questions, but not just for the Hawaiian legislature, for you.

Why do want to control the lives of other people? What is the true motivation behind that desire? And finally, would your life be better and more fulfilled by focusing on doing the things you want to do and letting others do the same?

It’s 2016, the start of a new year. Today, January 1st, do what you want to do and don’t worry so much about everyone else.

I’ll do the same. I won’t let my weariness stop me. I’ll write my blogs because I enjoy writing them. I’ll write my books because I love the sense of accomplishment I get from doing it. I’ll ask out that intelligent and interesting woman I met. I’ll play Dungeons and Dragons and Trivial Pursuit with my friends. I’ll be kind to family and friends.

Happy New Year to you all.

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

George Will Fears the End of a Conservative Party – It’s Already Gone

Posted on by

modern-republicansThe candidacy of Donald Trump has put to test a part of the Republican party that considers itself truly Conservative and George Will is of the opinion that a Trump nomination will mark the end of that faction of the GOP.

I’ve got news for you, Mr. Will. You and those of like minds might still be voting for Republicans, but the party is no longer Conservative and hasn’t been for a long time.

Part of the problem is that the term Conservative has come to mean two very different things to people who are members of the Republican party. The group to which Will largely belongs is Libertarian Conservativism. He does not believe the government should be telling individuals what to do and how to behave.

Meanwhile the majority of the Republican party has long since swayed to a combination of Cultural and Religious Conservatism. This group believes the government should interfere intimately in the lives of its citizens in cultural and religious matters. They believe preserving the state is integrally tied to preserving the culture. They believe in a very strong state with an untouchable police force that has the ability to enforce any and all draconian measures in order to keep us safe. They believe in a mighty military in order to keep us safe. They believe freedom is secondary to safety.

The two ideologies have, much to my mystification, remained compatible with one another in a single party up to this point. Certainly some people who considered themselves Republicans and Democrats have transitioned to the Libertarian Party in the last few years but hardly enough to make an impression in the political juggernauts that the two main parties remain. Libertarian candidates get around 1% of the vote in general elections.

Will finishes his article with the following sentiment: If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.

Mr. Will. There is a Conservative Party the 2016 election but it’s not the Republican Party, no matter who the nominee. There will be a Conservative Party in the 2020 elections and it won’t be the Republican Party. The party to which you harken with nostalgic foolishness may be there in name but it is not there in spirit.

Mr. Will, you cling to a phantom that is no more. A ghost, an apparition, and the longer you hold the dead thing to your bosom the more life will be sucked from your own body. You will eventually be nothing more than a husk of a man. An empty corpse that manages to shuffle along but does not see, does not hear, does not understand. Perhaps you are already there but I suspect not. I suspect there is life in there still, intelligence, vigor, and ability.

Mr. Will. We are Libertarians and with open arms we welcome such as you.

Tom Liberman

Syrian Refugees and the Threat they Pose

Posted on by

Syrian-refugeesThe Syrian Refugee crisis is in the news for a number of reasons but the one I am going to talk about today is the question of whether or not to allow them into various countries.

One of the main reasons this has become such an issue is that one of the murderous scum in the recent attacks in Paris was a refugee. This fact has caused a number of governors and other people in the United States and Europe to advocate refusing said refugees, send them back from whence they came. The fear being that more terrorists under the guise of being refugees will sneak into the country.

The danger of this is real. We cannot discount the fear espoused by those who do not want the refugees for this reason. Any terrorist who wanted to gain access to another country might well use the refugee crisis as a method to sneak in. Not only might they, at least one has.

So we admit there is a danger. By allowing refugees into the country we might allow a terrorist in. It’s also possible that the refugee might sometime in the future commit other crimes. Perhaps they will rob a store ten years from now. Again, this is not an idle fear. This is real. There is no doubt that some of the people who are allowed into the country will commit crimes at some point in their lives. By allowing such people into our country we certainly increase the danger we face. One cannot deny this is true.

The question I ask myself is what is the result of not allowing refugees into various countries? It’s important to understand the answer to that question before we can decide if we want to allow them in at all.

Up to four million people have fled the ongoing conflict in Syria into neighboring countries. What would happen to those people if they stayed in Syria?

Many would die, of that there is no question. The warring factions in Syria have little regard for human life. Those that survived would join one of the various warring factions. Some would join the Syrian government forces. Some would join ISIL. Some would form their own factions. Many of them would become radicalized. The children growing up in such an environment would learn death. They would grow up filled with hate. They would become the next generation of terrorists. We will create tens or even hundreds of thousands of hardened terrorists who hate the countries that refused them and caused the deaths of their families.

There is also the ethical point of view. By refusing refugees we condemn many of them to death, maiming, or miserable existences in order to procure a modicum of safety for ourselves.

One must remember that there is an upside to allowing in refugees. Here in my home town of St. Louis we embraced many Muslims from Bosnia during the civil disorder in that country. They have formed an amazing community here. Did some of them turn out to be criminals, certainly. Did some of their children grow up to be criminals, no doubt. But the vast majority are excellent citizens who not only contribute to the community but are grateful for our generosity. Who tell their family and friends who remained behind what a wonderful country they live in. A country where people of different religions, ethnic backgrounds, races, and skin color get along without murdering one another. A country where a more divisive question is if you root for the Cardinals or Cubs.

There are no simple answers to difficult questions. You must examine the reality of the situation. You must determine how much safety you are willing to give up to help those in need. You must ask yourself how many terrorists you wish to spawn upon future generations for your safety today.

I know what my decision would be but your life is your own to lead.

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

Anarchy is an Unmoderated Forum

Posted on by

chaos-wordsNow that I’ve joined a public Libertarian community I find myself in debates with Anarchists.

As I’ve stated before; I’m of the opinion the choice is not between Government and Non-Government but between limited government and a totalitarian state. That Anarchy inevitably falls to a Cult of Personality and eventually a dictatorship.

Today I use an Unmoderated Internet Forum to illustrate my point.

How many of you have used a Forum, Discussion List, or other group communication tool? I would say if you’re reading this blog, the odds are pretty good that you’ve done it.

I remember when my mother was fervently protesting against the US – Iraq war of 2003. She eagerly told me about this exciting Discussion List where those of a like-mind could express their thoughts and read everyone else’s.

Don’t do it, I told her. It’s a bunch of crazies.

Of course not, she replied. They are dedicated to a just cause. They are good folks.

It took her about three months to abandon the list. She came to me sheepishly, head hanging, and asked how she could remove her name from the list so as to not receive thousands of ranting and largely insane emails each day.

I use the above example not to denigrate those passionate about the wrongness of that particular war. I agree with them. The war was a disaster. I use it to illustrate that when you get enough people together in an unmoderated forum, the nut-jobs drive out everyone capable of rational thought. They post fifty times more than anyone else. They dominate the board with the insane ravings. Decent people who are dedicated to the cause flee leaving only madness behind.

My anarchist friends, I believe in your passion. I think your hearts are true, but if you get your way you’ll end up like Robespierre.

When the gathering is small enough, before it attracts the madness that lurks in this world, things seem not so bad. Anything is possible.

Let everyone speak, we’re all adults here, what can go wrong?

Guillotines is what can go wrong!

Anti-Vaccination is what can go wrong. Anti-GMO is what can go wrong. 911 Conspiracy is what can go wrong. Shemitah is what can go wrong.

When enough people in this world are filled with rational self-interest, then Anarchy can work. A little valley where only the chosen are invited, then Anarchy can work.

This world in which live? An unmoderated forum.

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

Free Association vs Free Assocation

Posted on by

free-association-free-associationI just became aware the Supreme Court recently decided an absolutely fascinating case, Christian Fellowship v. Leo P. Martinez et al.

The decision is a rather long read and I admit freely that I haven’t perused the entire thing as of yet. Also, my complete lack of legal training makes those documents tough for me anyway. I’ll try to summarize but anyone who has a better handle on the situation please feel free to clarify.

The University of California Hastings College of Law has a rule about student organizations it is willing to recognize. Such organizations are granted certain privileges at the college including meeting rooms. The rule is that they must accept anyone who applies, even someone whose stated views seem to be at odds with the group.

The group in question is the Christian Fellowship at Hastings. They forbid anyone who engages in premarital sex, among other things, from becoming a member. This was a clear violation of Hastings rule that to be recognized they must be willing to accept anyone who wants to join. The case went to the Supreme Court.

What I find insanely interesting about the case is that it is largely an argument about Free Association. The college wants to associate only with student groups who allow anyone to join and say they can exclude those who don’t. The Fellowship wants to associate with only people they want and feel free to exclude those who do meet their standards!

Both sides are essentially arguing the same point!

If you say the college must allow everyone regardless of their rules, it seems to me you can only say the Fellowship must allow everyone as well! If the college can exclude based on a rule then shouldn’t the Fellowship likewise be able to exclude?

Kaboom!

What do you do with that one?

As I said, the ruling goes on for pages and pages but talk about a tough one!

There are times I’m glad I’m not a Supreme Court Justice!

I honestly don’t know what to think. Talk about the Kobayashi Maru!

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

Farmers’ Market as Example of Anarchy

Posted on by

farmers marketI recently got into a somewhat cantankerous although not particularly angry or heated debate at my Libertarian website about why I was a Libertarian rather than an Anarchist. One of those who disagreed with me brought up the example of a Farmers’ Market as a working anarchy.

I thought it was an excellent example of exactly what happens in a anarchic system. I’m fairly certain I will get more disagreement from my anarchy promoting friends. Let me explain my position and you can tell me what you think.

I live in the suburbs of a fairly large metropolis, St. Louis, and I’ve seen any number of Farmers’ Markets spring up around me. There was originally one in my home community of University City and also a fairly large one in a downtown neighborhood called Soulard. Since then I’ve seen others pop up in other suburbs nearby. Each time I’ve witnessed the exact same transition from small farmers cooperative into undercover, secret major produce outlet market.

What happens is a group of local farmers get together to start a market in a metropolitan area to get their produce directly to their consumers. It immediately becomes popular with the locals of that community. Major suppliers take note and begin to buy up the booth space with disguise names; because of their deeper pockets they are able to outbid the local farmers. Soon all the local farmers are driven from the market leaving only the major produce players.

Let’s contrast this with the places I’ve seen small farmers have the most success. At my local chain grocery store! The small farmer sells to the major chain that puts the local, seasonal, produce in a bin up front and resells it for a profit, but still at a lower rate than their non-local produce. Everyone wins. The small farmer has an excellent and reliable outlet for their seasonal produce, the chain makes a nice profit, and the customers get produce at a reasonable price without having to drive a long distance.

This is exactly why I’m not an Anarchist. Anarchy cannot sustain itself, at least at this time. What happens to virtually all anarchistic situations is they attract people who take over the system to their own benefit. In a Farmers’ Market this inevitably is the major produce suppliers. In a political “market” this is the despot.

What works is a combination of limited government working with small but largely free people. Libertarianism!

To me the choice is not between government and no government but between reasonable government and dictatorial insanity. There is no stable anarchy and the Farmers’ Market seems to be evidence to that point, not against it.

What do you think?

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