Category Archives: Libertarian

You are Destroying America by Linking too Much (Share this Post Now or Your Family will Die)

Posted on by

Spreading LiesA friend of mine just went on a Facebook rant about how blog posts are often Liked, Shared, Linked, and otherwise disseminated to the public with no one actually bothering to check if what was written has any validity. Apparently he saw one too many miracle cancer cures roll by on his feed.

I’ve sort of spoken on this topic before. Here I talked about our culpability in spreading fake cancer cures on Facebook, and here I spoke about the idea of how the news story you click on drives it up the page. I have a weekly Stupid/Misleading Headline feature on this blog.

My friend included a link to this beautifully written and researched blog post on how to spot lies and distortions on the internet. After reading and admiring the post I didn’t want to simply reiterate the points so accurately made by David Wong.

The ways to spot fake articles listed by Wong are not particularly earth shattering. Whenever we read such a headline or story we generally realize it probably isn’t true. What harm could there be in putting in a Link? A Share? A Like? It’s just one click. Wong eloquently explains how these links, shares, and likes drive a story to more and more viewers, generating more and more hits, causing the information to gain credibility.

So, why am I writing this post? I hope to get people to spend some time thinking about their own responsibility for the plethora of false information out there. There is so much false information that it’s very easy to believe what you read and then spread the lies. When we pass along lies of this nature we are doing no one any favors. It is likely that a friend will believe us and tell someone else who will then laugh at them and correctly call them stupid. When you believe something, particularly something that seems unlikely, without bothering to do any checking of facts; you are stupid.

This problem has become so prevalent that many dishonest people are taking advantage of your clicks. They are using you for their own ends. Wong’s blog goes into great detail. As an example; magazines like Forbes now post the blogs of anyone who signs up. This is designed to drive their click rates up. Anyone can write anything and the blog link appears to go to a Forbes article. By having the Forbes name on it, the link seems legitimate, it is not.

The same goes for completely made up science articles, polls, news stories, and just about anything else you see. People simply make up something attention grabbing and sensational and then count on you to link to it.

The very nature of this fraud goes to my Libertarian philosophies of personal responsibility. Do you really want to link horoscope information? The article that proclaims your least favorite politician is DOOMED? Do you want to spread lies? Most of us would feel extremely guilty if we spread a lie about a friend but every time we Share an article we are spreading that information, if the article is a lie, we are liars.

Each time we do something like this we increase the amount of false information on the internet. This sort of thing cannot be stamped out through legislation. It is up to each of us to examine the information and Share it only if we have spent at least a few seconds confirming its veracity.

My advice is that you should avoid being stupid. Spend some time looking into that article before you share it with friends. And, of course, SHARE THIS NOW!!!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Personal Responsibility – The Libertarian Ideal

Posted on by

ResponsibilityEarlier today I posted about a law recently passed here in a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri in which a person caught texting and driving will face maximum penalties of $10,000 in fines and ninety days in prison.

I immediately got into several discussions, both social media and face-to-face, about the merits of my ideas. My theory was that the real problem was Inattentive Driving and that texting while driving was only one example. That by passing a law very specifically aimed at this one kind of Inattentive Driving the municipality was opening itself to some trouble.

The idea is that an officer would be responsible for upholding the law. If a person was texting but the car wasn’t moving; they would be in violation of the law. Also, an officer would be obligated to write a citation for a less-distracted driver texting and not so obligated for a more distracted driver who say, had a wasp fly in the window and land in his lap (I speak from experience).

I argued that a law against Inattentive Drive was broader in reach and would allow law enforcement officers to use their judgment and common sense in handing out citations.

The thrust of most of the arguments against my method were two-fold. One was that of all the events that distract a driver it was texting that was the most likely to cause an accident and therefore the best bang for the buck. The other was that my law against Inattentive Driving left far too much discretion in the hands of the officer of the law. That laws needed to written so that there could be no confusion carrying them out.

In particular the second objection speaks to the very heart of the Libertarian ideal.

It is the bad apple spoils the barrel philosophy, the zero-tolerance philosophy, the mandatory minimum sentencing strategy. The idea is that we cannot trust individuals to make decisions therefore we must pass restrictions narrowly and take power away from the individual. Your daughter was thrown out of school for having a Tylenol? Not my fault, zero-tolerance. You were ticketed for texting while stopped in a traffic jam? Not my fault, just upholding the ordinance. You were given ten years for having a small amount of marijuana? Not my fault, it’s the law.

These kinds of laws are made with the best intentions but largely take us into a Libertarian nightmare. It seems self-evident to me that as we give people less and less responsibility they will be less and less responsible.

I suggest we give people more responsibility and if, and only if, they prove untrustworthy should we take it away. If there’s a bad apple in the barrel, then throw that one apple away. If an officer hands out a ridiculous Inattentive Driving citation using my broad law then bring in the officer for more training. If the officer persists, fire them.

Libertarianism works when people are responsible. People become responsible in one way. By being given responsibility and being held accountable for their actions with that responsibility. If they handle it well they deserve promotions, upwards movement into management where they will train others such responsibility. If they don’t; they will be trained, disciplined, and eventually fired.

The heart of my argument is that by passing Bad Apple laws we are lessening the likelihood for just outcomes by increasing the number of people in the world who do not know how to behave responsibly. I freely admit that passing broad laws opens them to possible misuse. However, I argue that narrow laws designed around the Bad Apple principle eventually result in a far more unjust society.

In the ideal Libertarian world everyone does what is right because doing what is right is in their long-term best interest. You don’t have to tell me that this world will never be. I realize this.

It just seems to me that if we want a more fair world, a more just world, a world wherein people behave responsibly and ethically; the path is not to micromanage people’s lives. It is to give people an understanding of what it takes to succeed and of how ethical behavior benefits all society in the long run.

If you want a strong society then give people responsibility, don’t take it away.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Taxed by Miles Driven – An Oregon Proposal

Posted on by

Gasoline TaxThere’s an interesting idea being tested in the Beaver state of Oregon and it has the potential to have a negative impact on me. The state has started a pilot program wherein drivers will pay a tax of 1.5 cents per mile driven instead of the 49.5 cents/gallon they currently pay in taxes. This includes the 18.5 cents/gallon federal tax.

The reason for this idea is that cars have become significantly more fuel-efficient in the last twenty years and that has greatly reduced the revenue generated by gasoline taxes. Adjusting for inflation it seems as if the revenue stream has dropped by about 40%. The money from such taxes are supposed to be used to pay for both the upkeep on existing roads and bridges and any new construction.

According to most surveys, the roads and bridges in the United States are in abysmal condition and that is a dangerous situation for anyone who travels on them.

The reason this method of taxation has a negative effect on me is because I own a Prius and get about 45 miles to the gallon. This means I fill up my tank about half as much as someone getting 23 miles to the gallon. Thus I pay about half the Missouri gasoline tax (35.7 cents/gallon) as my fellow Show Me state brethren.

The new system means that I would pay exactly the same amount as someone who drove an equal number of miles in a year.

As a Libertarian I’m often criticized for not wanting any government but that is an over-generalization. I think roads are one of the most important services the government provides and I think it is only equitable that I pay for the use I get from them. Not only my own driving but that of goods that are shipped over them to the stores I frequent.

However, this new per mile method doesn’t take into account the weight of the car which is a hugely important factor in damage to the roads. Lighter cars do far less damage to the roads than do heavier vehicles, particularly trucks. Now, roads are damaged not only by heavy vehicles but also by weathering and even the government is going to be hard pressed to find  a way to tax the weather (although I wouldn’t put it past them).

So, what is an equitable solution? I think Oregon is going in the right direction but it could easily be a multiple of the miles driven by the weight of the car. It seems like a formula would not be difficult to derive.

We all like our roads and benefit from them in many ways. The lifestyle we lead is in no small part based upon the transportation system in the United States. It is in our best interest to maintain it at peak efficiency.

All taxes should be based upon the service that government provides. If my Prius does X amount of damage to the road then I should be taxed X with Y added for the general weathering damage. People who drive more, who use heavier vehicles, should be taxed more than those who drive less or not at all.

This is an important argument in the Libertarian arsenal. We are not against taxes but we think that taxes must be justified by expenses. If the gasoline taxes, if all taxes, are designed to generate exactly the revenue necessary to maintain that particular service I will gladly pay them.

I applaud Oregon’s effort, which faces a number of tests including how to determine the number of miles driven and miles driven by out-of-state visitors. The idea is a move in the right direction, let’s see how the implementation goes.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Banning Boobies at School

Posted on by

I love boobiesThere was an interesting case a while back that is slowly making its way through the courts and is now one step short of the Supreme Court.

One of the various methods in which people support breast cancer research these days is a bracelet with the words I (heart) Boobies on it. It’s mainly designed for younger girls who wear that sort of thing and the Easton Area school district in the Keystone State of Pennsylvania decided that it was sexual in nature and banned students from wearing the bracelet.

A pair of girls defied the ban on Breast Cancer Awareness day in 2010 and were suspended for their defiance. Multiple courts have ruled that the district did not prove the bracelets were disruptive with the most recent being a federal appeals court. The district voted to continue the case which means it now heads to the Supreme Court.

The reason I find the case interesting is that it is a clash of my Libertarian ideals. On one hand I think the school has every right to have a dress code and enforce it. On the other hand I think individuals have the right to wear what they choose as long as it is not particularly disruptive.

The school board banned the bracelets originally because the term boobies was determined to be lewd and designed around sexual themes. This violated the dress code restricting sexual suggestive language or images. Several other schools have banned the bracelets as well.

So, where does a Libertarian land on this issue?

The bracelets are clearly not sexually suggestive and I reject that argument out of hand. It’s a bit humorous and certainly mentions the word boobies but it just doesn’t rise to the level of being sexual in my opinion. Likewise there seems to be no evidence that the bracelets were causing disruption in the school.

On the other hand, if the school wants to ban, say, black socks, then that’s their right. They pass a rule and any student who violates it should expect the punishment they get. It’s a stupid rule to be certain but the school has the right to make rules about dress codes. This is clear.

In the end I’m going to side with the district although not because I think the bracelets are lewd or disruptive but simply because the district board has the right to create whatever dress code they desire. If the students and parents of that district object they can elect new representation next time around.

That’s the way representative republics work.

I think what would have been best is if the girls followed the rule that year but started a political campaign to remove those who voted for the ban from office. Getting board members elected who see the stupidity of the rule and reverse it. That’s government by the people for the people.

That’s what we want. The courts have their place to be certain but I think every time we resort to them rather than creating a real political solution we get further away from what the Founding Fathers desired.

If you don’t like the decisions your representative makes; be it local, state, or federal, you have the power of the vote. When we hold people responsible for their decisions, not the rhetoric they spew during the election cycle, we make the country a better place.

Not to say that I don’t love boobies, I do.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Journeys Employees Quit – Important Lessons

Posted on by

Journeys ApparelThere’s an instructive news story making the rounds about some employees for an apparel and footwear store named Journeys. They quit in the middle of the day leaving an expressive note on the storefront.

This story screams to both my high-brow Libertarian ideology and to my deeply guttural personal life. This story is about the human experience, about capitalism, about self-loathing, and about self-respect. It’s got it all and I aim to tell you why.

First the facts. Three employees at a Journeys store left in the middle of the day without notice. The store manager, co-manager, and one worker simply closed the front door, pinned a note to it, and left.

We don’t know if the injustices that caused the employees to take such drastic action were real or imagined. We can hear stories from all sides and still not know for certain. The fact is, it’s unimportant to my discussion.

I once worked in an environment where the boss was intentionally unfair. Cruel for the joy of cruelty. I arrived early in the morning and was looking at the clock hoping for the end of the day within an hour. I lay awake at night my mind and stomach churning. I hated it. For nearly nine months I lived it. But, that’s not important either.

When we allow ourselves to be treated that way we undermine our own lives, we undermine the business for which we work, and we undermine the entire capitalistic system.

We excuse ourselves because we “need” the job. We don’t. You don’t; as much as you think you do, you don’t. I know it seems like you need that job but every day you spend there is a day of you life lost. A day you’re not out there finding work with people you respect, who respect you, who respect their business. It’s one more day that you turn into a bitter, self-loathing person who sneaks out when no one is looking hoping to hurt other people. The kind of person who pins nasty notes on walls because you’re too cowardly to stand face-to-face with those who hurt you.

The first time someone treats you like that stop right there and tell them you will not take it. There’s no need to yell, to scream, to whine about the unfairness of life. Explain, calmly and rationally, that you don’t like being treated that way and that you won’t accept being treated that way. If they fire you, you’re better off.

Here’s an excerpt from my book, The Sword of Water.

****************

Jon nodded his head and smiled narrowly at the girl, “Exactly. I say that there is much to fear. Sorus suggests we must use caution because of those dangers. He is not far wrong, but we must never succumb to fear. Fear is the tool of evil. Fear is the tool of the despot. The first time you hid from your siblings you did so because of fear. Did that help you?”

“No,” said Silenia, blinking back tears as the memories flooded into her mind with such vividness that she suddenly felt back in that place, hiding, always hiding. “Eventually I had to come out and they used the flat of the knife on me,” she sniffled.

“Yet was it ever easier to hide the next time and the time after, wasn’t it?”

Silenia nodded her head, pursed her lips together, and stifled another sob, “It got easier each time.”

****************

Not only does an employee who refuses to stand up to a bully hurt themselves but they hurt every employee who follows them, they hurt the business, and they hurt capitalism. If everyone refused to work for nasty people but instead flocked to jobs where good people treated employees with respect and with fairness; the whole system works.

Don’t get me wrong, fairness doesn’t mean you get paid for lazing around. Fairness means you work hard, next to other people working hard, and you make good money doing it. That’s American! Or it used to be. If the job needs you to work an extra three hours that night, you work it but the boss gives you the morning off. If the boss can’t give you the morning off then you get a bonus. That’s what I mean by fair. That’s what works, for business, for people, for our country.

Leaving in the middle of the day when there’s work to be done isn’t fair, it’s not right, and it’s a sign of having no self-respect. I can’t excuse it. I won’t. The boss treating an employee like garbage because they can get away with it? That’s just as cowardly, just as sick, just as filled with self-loathing.

This story? It’s a lesson all right, a lesson in everything that’s wrong.

Respect yourself. Respect your co-workers. Respect your employees.

Start right now.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 and worth all 299 pennies!)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Ford Motor Company – A Long Strange Trip

Posted on by

Ford MOtor CompanyI saw a story today that showed the Ford Focus automobile is now the best-selling car in the world. The company has had a long and tumultuous history that I think is quite instructive in the ways of capitalism and the ideas of libertarians.

The company was founded in 1903 by Henry Ford and twelve investors including Alexander Y. Malcomson as an equal partner.

Ford was antisemitic. His newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, published false information called The Protocols of the Elders in Zion which is used by those who hate Jews to this day. He was praised by Adolph Hitler and given medals of honor by the Nazi Government.

He was just as virulently anti-union and in 1941 almost closed his entire company rather than unionize, only being convinced by his wife not to do it.

In the early years the Ford company had a Social Department which actively checked up on workers personal habits including those Ford himself found distasteful: drinking, gambling, and fathers who did not support their families.

By 1918 almost 50% of all cars sold in the United States were Model T vehicles, what would almost certainly be considered a monopoly today.

The company appeared near bankruptcy in 2008 and applied for government loans to stay in operation.

So, we know Ford was an anti-Semite, overly involved in the personal lives of his employees, anti-union, essentially ran a monopoly, and the company ran to the government to bail them out from their self-induced financial problems. Now, let’s look at his business practices.

While Ford personally disliked Jews his newspaper disavowed violence and he was never charged with discriminating against Jews. He also hired blacks and the physically disabled which was extremely rare at that time for a major US corporation.

His quickly growing company required heavy work from its employees and to combat turnover ratio he instituted extremely high wages for his employees and offered profit-sharing. He also introduced limited work hours and eventually abandoned his Social Department saying that “paternalism has no place in industry.”

He was anti-union because he thought union leaders, although meaning well, would end up harming workers more than helping them. He thought a good manager did right by workers because it improved profit margins. He practiced what he preached offering high wages and limited working hours.

Despite the fact that by 1918 he had a virtual monopoly on car sales his high wages and low working hours had decreased turnover and increased productivity to a point that he continually lowered prices on his vehicles!

He never engaged in monopolistic practices like Gouging, Collusion and Cartels. When competition arose it often did so by following his labor friendly practices. Competition did arise organically and consumers and workers benefited tremendously.

He never went to the government asking them to pass laws to help his company and destroy competitors. He ran for office in 1918 at the behest of Democrat Woodrow Wilson in order to support the League of Nations. Ford was a strong pacifist and felt war was a tremendous waste of time and effort.

Ford insisted that war was the product of greedy financiers who sought profit in human destruction and that true capitalist brought prosperity to their nations. Be aware that when Ford used the word financiers, he meant Jews. I find disgusting his assessment that this was some Jewish led conspiracy but the idea that war and misery is profitable for a certain kind of person is absolutely true. He believed true capitalist disavow war and help improve the lives of everyone by driving down the cost of goods and increasing the quality of life for employees. That the pursuit of riches is not the point although those who run a business properly bring prosperity to all around them.

In 2008 when the other US car companies went to the government and took money from them, Ford instead sat down with their unions and hammered out an equitable arrangements. Credit goes to both Ford and the unions. Now the company is thriving to benefit of all parties.

I can’t help wonder what he would think today about the Crony Capitalism that has descended on this country. The men and women of all races, creeds, and colors who fit his profile of financier.

Ford’s antisemitism leaves a lasting legacy to this day but so do his fair-minded business practices. His goal was to a run a company that employed people at a good wage, sold a product people wanted at a fair price, and make the world a better place. He got rich doing it.

A lesson for us all about both business and the folly of unreasoning hatred.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (Fairly priced at $2.99)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Too Much Help – Helicopter Parenting

Posted on by

Helicopter ParentingThere was an interesting article in the news this morning that struck a chord with my Libertarian philosophies. The basic idea is that parents who are overly involved in their children’s lives do them no favors.

The article cites one specific study and indicates that others show the same trend but also admits that when it comes to parenting there are a number of styles that offer success. I don’t have any children myself and I’m probably not the best person in the world to analyze the data but I can, at least, speak from having worked with juniors in several golf programs over the years.

Let’s first talk about the concepts of helicopter parenting. The idea is that for children to succeed in the super-competitive modern world parents need to be involved in every aspect of their lives. This hovering is especially noteworthy around school where every grade is argued for the student, specialized tutoring is offered to help write college entrance essays, and other things of this nature.

The argument against this kind of parenting is that children who are not allowed to fend for themselves become anxiety ridden and unable to cope with the problems that arise in their lives. It’s fairly self-evident to me that if you do not allow a person to solve their own problems they will never learn that skill for themselves. It’s analogous the nanny state that America is becoming and I’ve talked about that in other posts.

One of the things I find discouraging about this country is how many people complain about the government without the realization that they are complaining about themselves. We are the government. We have the government we want. We chose them. I’ve talked about that topic before. My point in mentioning it here is that the nanny state isn’t responsible for helicopter parenting, it is our helicopter parenting that causes us to become a nanny state. Our representatives are us.

One of the ideas that I found most interesting about this sort of behavior was that parents who engage in it are actually less emotionally available to their children. They use modern technology to keep tabs on their children, fight with teachers, and defend their kids as a way to show their love without actually having to spend time loving. It’s like someone who clicks the “Like” button to support a cause. Look at me! I care! I hate cancer! Look at me, look at me. I’m better than you because you don’t hate cancer. I’m the greatest parent ever.

I’m certainly not suggesting that parents shouldn’t be involved in their children’s lives and their education. It just seems to me that a person who grows up not having to solve their own problems is not going to be a successful adult.

I’m reminded of my time at Spring Lake Golf Course in Quincy, IL under the direction of head pro Les Holcombe. We were teaching juniors when one little fellow came over to me and stated that “Jimmy took my club.” I was ready to offer my help when Les jumped in and said, “Then go take it back”. I immediately understood that Les was absolutely correct.

There are certainly circumstances of bullying, poor-teaching, and general life incidents that do require a parents intervention. I’m just suggesting that the first response to a  difficulty that arises should not be to solve the problem for the child. A person who grows up solving their own problems is a person who has a better chance to succeed in life. Isn’t that what any parent wants?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (watch Silenia grow from frightened lamb to an empowered young lady)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

The best laid schemes of Dongles and Men

Posted on by

Twitter FiringThe tech world is currently in an uproar because of this.

In a nutshell there was a conference for developers using an open-source programming language called Python in which two male attendees were supposedly making crude jokes about dongles and forking. Both are legitimate computer terms rich with humor potential. Use your imagination. A female attendee grew disgusted with the jokes and snapped a picture of the men and tweeted about it.

The result is that one of the men telling the jokes was fired as was the woman.

To give some clarity I’d like to elaborate on the male dominated culture of IT. It’s male dominated. It’s nerd dominated. Nerdy males sometimes don’t have the best social skills. Ask anyone who knows me. However, it can also be misogynistic. Really, really misogynistic. I’ve seen some things. My job as a technical trainer takes me to many different companies and I’m often immersed in the backroom getting things setup before class. I’ve seen women IT staffers treated like garbage. I’m talking, “Go get us coffee” type behavior. Crude jokes about body parts. I’ve seen women employees who needed help from the IT staff treated in humiliating fashion, forced to almost beg. I’m not saying it’s common, I’m not even saying I’ve seen it frequently, but I’ve seen it.

It’s quite likely that the women who tweeted the message was just fed-up after being immersed in that atmosphere. It’s quite likely that the men meant no harm or even knew they were being offensive. I don’t know, I can’t say for sure. Maybe she lied and there were no crude jokes? Maybe the guys were intentionally trying to humiliate her? It’s impossible to say.

What is clear is that two people have lost their jobs. Why?

I’ll take it at face value. They told some off-color jokes. She was a little peeved and tweeted it. That’s the end of their part in this. What happened next has to do with the companies that employed them. One company decided to fire the jokester. When the internet storm began to slam the other company because of the tweet-instigated firing, they fired the tweeter.

In the end a company can generally fire people for any reason other than one protected by the government; age, sex, race, religion, etc. If they want to fire, they can fire. The publicity from the tweet was bad for both companies although the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity isn’t without merit. Both companies were afraid and that’s the crux of the issue.

Ok, I’ll finally get to my opinion. What is happening to the United States? We have become a nation of cowards. Our politicians tell us to be afraid, our media tells us to watch out what we say, our employers fire us for the least sin. We eagerly attack anyone who makes a mistake and roast them on the spit of public opinion. Fear is not our friend. Fear is the enemy. When we embrace fear, and that is all the two firings represent, we destroy freedom.

My most recent novel, the Sword of Water addresses the concept of fear directly. There are two characters who embody the opposite ideas of how to treat fear. I’m going to include an excerpt here from both of them.

*********************************

High Priest Amalagaz talking to his son:

“Do you see what a little fear injects into the relationship?” said Amalagaz with a smile as he leaned back on the cushions, a satisfied smile on his face. “As I have told you many times, you must befriend fear, you must take it close to your heart and understand it completely, fully, intimately. Without fear you cannot rule. Without fear your subjects will overthrow your throne and burn you on a pyre. They will rape your wife and they will murder your children. You must instill fear in their hearts and then they are yours. You must make them afraid of you. Your enemies must fear you and they will react to your moves. Your allies must fear you and they will do as you say. If your enemies don’t fear you then they will take the initiative, they will deploy their forces with vigor and energy. If they fear you they will hide in their citadels and await your approach hiding behind useless defenses, slowly sapping their will to fight, waiting for you to conquer them.”

Taragaz stared raptly at his father, “Fear.”

“Yes, my son. It is not limited to your enemies; it is your most potent weapon in driving your people. Tell them the enemy is plotting against them, tell them the enemy is waiting to destroy them, tell them that the enemy is lurking behind every shadow and they will do anything to stay safe. They will throw their own children onto the flames to keep the fear at bay. Lie to your people to inflame them. Wipe out a little village on your border and claim it was your neighbor’s rapacious armies. Tell them that an unknown enemy is building a fleet, arming ten thousand soldiers for an invasion and they will jump up and shout your name as they kill anyone who speaks against you. The voice of reason is the first casualty to the blade of fear.”

*********************************

Jon Gray to Silenia:

“There’s always reason to fear,” said Jon waving his hands to both sides. “The world is a dangerous place. Someone might be lurking around every corner, waiting to stick a dirk in your ear. You could fall off a horse, you might slip on the ice and break your leg, get an infection, die. You might fall out of a tree because you climbed too high and smash your brains on a rock.”

“So, you’re telling us to just do anything without thinking about the dangers?” said Sorus. “Come now, Jon. These are children. Do you mean to frighten them?”

“She is already afraid. Fear is the great enemy,” said Jon. “Fear can destroy a man or an entire nation.”

“Or a little girl,” said Silenia trembling but standing firm before Jon.

Jon nodded his head and smiled narrowly at the girl, “Exactly. I say that there is much to fear. Sorus suggests we must use caution because of those dangers. He is not far wrong, but we must never succumb to fear. Fear is the tool of evil. Fear is the tool of the despot. The first time you hid from your siblings you did so because of fear. Did that help you?”

“No,” said Silenia, blinking back tears as the memories flooded into her mind with such vividness that she suddenly felt back in that place, hiding, always hiding. “Eventually I had to come out and they used the flat of the knife on me,” she sniffled.

“Yet was it ever easier to hide the next time and the time after, wasn’t it?”

Silenia nodded her head, pursed her lips together, and stifled another sob, “It got easier each time.”

“Fear is the enemy,” repeated Jon. “Sorus, when you were a boy and the others were being chosen as squires did you stand up, did you shout out?”

Sorus shook his head, “I was smaller, sickly.”

“Did not standing up serve you well, each time you failed to say something was it easier to remain silent the next?”

Sorus nodded his head, “Yes, each time was easier, but it did work out in the long run though. You arrived in Elekargul and now I’m here.”

“True enough,” said Jon. “But would you rely on luck, on coincidence, to drive your life?”

“No,” said Sorus, Jerichi, and Silenia in the same whispered tone.

“When your father first murdered an innocent in front of you, Silenia. Did you say anything?”

Now the girl was crying, “No, I didn’t say anything.”

“Why?”

“I was afraid.”

“Fear destroys nations,” said Jon. “People think that it’s fine to say nothing when they see an atrocity, when they see evil. It’s easier to let it be than to get involved, it’s dangerous to try to stop something like that. When you let evil have its way, when you stand idly by, then people who do evil are emboldened. They think they can do more evil and no one will stop them. A petty man with a petty life sabotages a good man to get ahead. An inferior warrior gets an ally to weigh down his opponent’s armor and gains a promotion. Then he becomes a captain, then a general and he promotes his equally unethical companion. Then the battle is lost, the war is lost. All because the person that saw it happening was afraid to step in and do something.”

“But they might die if they step in,” said Jerichi his hands now at his side and his voice barely audible.

“They might,” said Jon. “They often do.”

“What good does it do if they die?” said Jerichi.

“What you are asking me is, ‘What good does it do to conquer your fear and act?” said Jon with a snort. “It makes a nation strong. It inspires those around you to do the same.”

*********************************

Would you take the advice of Amalagaz or of Jon?

Make no mistake, the firings were based on fear. So many other options were available. I’m not going to discuss them today. Fear won again.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

RG III and the I didn’t know Excuse

Posted on by

RG IIIAs my one or two loyal followers well know; sports is my first love. Long before I was writing Ayn Rand tribute novels dedicated to the ideas of Objectivism and Libertarianism I was living and dying, mostly dying, with the St. Louis Cardinals (football and baseball) and St. Louis Blues sports teams. While things have changed to some degree, I still love sports.

Last night I was doing some research into ACL injuries because of the Robert Griffin III situation with the Washington Redskins. I have an oar in the water on this one. My beloved, yes, I said “my”, read my Cardinals blog on the subject, my beloved St. Louis Rams have the Redskin’s first round pick next year and the year after. So, if RG III is disabled that would seem to indicate this pick might be of more value.

That’s not the subject of my blog today. What I want to talk about is how people use willful ignorance to avoid responsibility. Griffin is just my example.

The evidence that this is the case is a bizarre exchange between the doctor and the head coach of the Redskins. Griffin suffered an injury in an earlier game, came out for a play, and then went back in. Coach Mike Shanahan was asked about the incident and said that the doctored said it was ok for Griffin to return. The doctor, days later, denied even examining Griffin or clearing him saying he was very concerned by his return. Later the doctor hedged saying he didn’t examine Griffin and the quarterback went into the game largely on his own although the doctor gave some sort of a signal to the coach indicating it was ok for Griffin to return.

Here’s what really happened, in my opinion. Griffin partially tore his ACL at that moment. He knew something was wrong and avoided the doctor because that’s what incredibly tough football players do. Then he went back into the game. The coach didn’t want to ask the doctor because he wanted Griffin in the game. The doctor didn’t insist on examining Griffin because he also wanted Griffin in the game. The next few weeks the Redskin willfully pretended that things were ok by not doing thorough examinations. They didn’t want to know because knowing might be bad.

In the grand scheme of things this isn’t a huge deal but it mirrors something I see in today’s society and particular in our supposed leaders. These are the men and women who are supposed to be setting examples for all of us. They are our leaders, the men and women Ayn Rand writes about, the high achievers.

In the George W. Bush administration there was willful ignorance about our soldiers brutally torturing prisoners of war. There was a willful unwillingness to pass along information about the murder of a true Randian hero, Pat Tillman. President Obama didn’t know anything about the situation in Benghazi. Executives at Enron had no idea of the financial manipulations. The housing industry’s meltdown was systemic but no one wanted stand up and make hard decisions. No one wanted responsibility and underlings knew this and thus willfully refused to pass along pertinent information.

Rand writes specifically about this in the early chapters of Atlas Shrugged with Dagny Taggart makes a hard decision about the train on which she is riding. The people who are supposed to make the decision are paralyzed with fear that they will make the wrong decision and do nothing. She steps in and takes charge.

Failing to heed the moral of this story will bring this nation down. Leaders need to lead. They need to make hard decisions and sometimes make incorrect decisions. Voters need to elect those who are willing to make tough decision and be less eager to attack anyone who makes a mistake. Business leaders must lead instead of grub for more money and bail themselves out with golden parachutes.

I don’t want to be overly negative here. All is not lost. There are many leaders out there who are not afraid to make tough decisions and want what’s best their company, their constituents, their soldiers, and their country. Not only must such men and women step forward but we must honor those who do so and stop making excuses for those who don’t, even if they are from the party for which we vote.

Reward courage. Reward loyalty. Reward honesty. Reward honor. Reward kindness. Stop rewarding cowardice, betrayal, hate, and greed. Stop it in your own life wherever you encounter it, in the little things, in our everyday life.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Where is Gary Johnson?

Posted on by

Gary JohnsonThe second Presidential Debate is going on about now, or so I’d guess. I’m not watching. My guy wasn’t invited … again.

Gary Johnson.

Live Free. Live free, my friends. Live free.

As of this moment Gary Johnson will not become President of the United States. Libertarian candidates in general will not win many elections for Senator, Governor, Congressman, or much of anything else at a national or state level.

The world is approaching a crisis and a great man once told a nation that the only thing they had to fear was fear itself. The closer we get to this crisis the more fear paralyzes us into inaction.

Are you afraid of Obama? Are you afraid of Romney? Are you afraid of Iran getting nuclear weapons? Are you afraid for Social Security? Is your fear driving your vote?

Are you willing to sacrifice your freedom for the illusion of safety?

Are you afraid of “throwing your vote away”?

Are you absolutely certain you’re right? Are you sure the other guy is wrong? Do you skip listening and reading other points of view?

If so, then we don’t want you now, but we hope you’ll give up on fear and join us.

We want people who know that a vote a Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. We want people who understand that hardship is part of life. We want people who think it’s not wrong to help those who are suffering. We want people who are willing to work with those who don’t agree with them. We want people who listen to the other side of an argument. We want people who know it’s easy to make a mistake, who are willing to admit a mistake, who are willing to forgive someone else for making a mistake. We want people who know there are no easy answers and anyone trying to sell them is a charlatan.

If you are afraid; then you should feel right at home in the United States of America, the land where fear mongering wins elections and reasonable compromise is forgotten.

We can change everything. Every election we get that opportunity. We might not make change this time, or next time, but we’re here, and we’re not giving up.

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

Paul Ryan and the Pony Party

Posted on by

Vermin Supreme**************

I’ve noticed I’m still getting some hits on this story but fewer on my follow-up apology. For those who read this make sure to note the comments. I made a major mistake here and an alert reader spotted it for me. The link to my apology is below. Thanks!

***************

 

Now I’m mad.

Congressman Paul Ryan, you disgust me. I’ll post the quote from this story.

For those of us who would have voted in the primaries for, say, Ron Paul, why should we vote for you and not, say, libertarians or Vermin Supreme and the Pony Party or something like that?

Paul Ryan thinks Libertarians like myself, people who respect the integrity of Congressman Paul, are comparable to people who think this man should be president.

I’m going to clue in you Congressman Ryan. I’m Libertarian because I love my country. I’m a Libertarian because I believe in personal rights and limited government. I love the Constitution of the United States. I love the freedom on which the country grew and became strong. But to you I’m someone who votes for the Pony Party?

Die Congressman Ryan. Seriously. Die and make this country a better place. Hang your head in shame. You miserable excuse for a human. How dare you? How dare you!

In your disgusting desperation to win an election you stoop to claiming I think the United States of America is a joke? That elections are fun and games? That voting for Gary Johnson is equivalent to voting for a gag candidate? You know nothing of Libertarianism, of real conservatism. Nothing!

I will never vote for you. Never! I hope no one votes for a disgusting piece of garbage like you. I hope you lose your seat in Congress. I hope your cronies refuse to give you a million dollar a year job after you lose the election.

If you want to know why I’m a Libertarian Congressman Ryan, look in the mirror.

You think I care if Obama wins compared to Romney? You’re a fool. I vote for Gary Johnson not to prevent Romney from winning but because I love my country. Would that everyone felt the same.

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

Republican Convention Ron Paul Tribute – Without Ron Paul

Posted on by

Ron PaulI couldn’t let this one pass without comment. The Republicans are planning on having a Ron Paul tribute at their upcoming National Convention but would only allow Congressman Paul to speak if he agreed to have his speech vetted by the Romney campaign team and only if he fully endorsed Romney. Congressman Paul, of course, said no thanks.

A tribute to a man and he’s not allowed to speak? Seriously? Congressman Paul will be giving a speech nearby.

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign continues to do everything it can to keep properly appointed Paul delegates off the floor and away from the campaign. It is shocking hypocrisy but nothing I find unusual, sadly.

I only wish Paul, and his son Senator Rand Paul, would just leave the Republican Party once and for all and join the Libertarian Party. Their thinking, not wrongly, is of a practical aspect. They believe they can do more to influence the country from within the ranks of one of the two major parties than they can from outside of them. I think they’re wrong but it’s certainly their decision.

The two parties both are tied irrevocably to moneyed interests and have little to nothing in common with Libertarian ideals. Both parties try to talk about the principles of real men like Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy, of small, less intrusive government, of noble government, but both parties support massive, corrupt, and intrusive government in virtually all of their policies.

A Ron Paul tribute in which the honoree is only allowed to attend if he bows down and betrays his principles. That’s the current condition of the United States of America. What a shame. What a terrible, terrible shame.

Only you can change it. Don’t vote Democrat or Republican. Vote Independent.

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

Internet Sale Tax – Coming Soon

Posted on by

Internet Sales TaxLegislation is slowly making its way through Washington D.C. that will institute a Sales Tax on internet purchases. Those in favor of this tax, although most refuse to call it a tax instead using the phrase Collection Issue, say it is unfair that internet sales do not have a sales tax whereas brick and mortar stores do have such a tax.

To understand why it is completely fair that Internet Sales don’t have a sales tax while Brick and Mortar do have one we have to understand the purpose of a Sales Tax, or any tax at all.

The rationale for such taxes is that in order to sell something to a consumer, the product and the customer must get to your store by state and federally built roads. They park in your store on free use parking lots generally built and maintained by municipalities. Stores use utilities; gas, electric, water, sewage, whose infrastructure requires government moneys. Internet sales clearly do not require this upkeep although if there is a warehouse where the product is delivered in the state it does require such resources. The roads used to deliver such a package to your door are also under that umbrella of activity.

However, the trucks that deliver goods pay gas taxes for the upkeep of the road. Gasoline taxes are generally justified as a way to pay for road and bridge building and maintenance. That makes perfect sense to me.

The only real justification for this new tax is the warehousing of goods which need employees to unload and load product for the consumer. These employees need water, heat, parking, etc. That is why Amazon is working out its own sales tax scheme with various states because they are building a network of warehouses all over the U.S. to ensure that your product is delivered promptly.

Now, here is my main point. If we become a society that orders our goods online we will significantly lessen the burden on utilities, parking lots, roads, and other government provided services. Brick and mortar stores will disappear and parks will appear. If we stop driving our cars all over to pick up toothpaste then the government spends less money and our taxes should likewise decrease. But, if we tax internet sales, whose price is lower for natural, capitalistic reasons, we are unfairly benefitting brick and mortar stores! Taxes should be lower on internet sales. This will, and is, creating many positive effects on consumption of gasoline, water, electricity etc! Not that the government should decide this one way or the other. If one business practice is cheaper and people like it then it should win out.

I’m not totally opposed to taxation on internet sales whose goods go through a warehouse in that state or municipality. I’m just saying it should be significantly lower for those specific cases and if there is no warehouse, there should be no tax at all. The reason it is lower is that only large trucks have to deliver the goods as compared to many cars coming and going. Warehouses have fewer employees than equally sized brick and mortar store where one warehouse might replace fifty or more traditional business locations.

The benefits of internet sales are many and we shouldn’t be discouraging this with unfair taxes that help brick and mortar stores under the misguided guise of “fairness”.

Tell me what you think in the comments!

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

Soda Tax – Good Idea?

Posted on by

Sin TaxAs the Federal government continues with their financial woes and bond rate manipulation costs state and municipality millions if not billions of dollars those entities are coming up with creative ways to tax. One of the most common and popular way to raise revenue is so-called “Sin Taxes“. One new idea coming to a city near you is to tax soda consumption.

I’m going to explore the idea of a Sin Tax and whether it is a reasonable way for municipalities to raise money for their operations. I don’t want to get too deeply into the idea of waste and government overspending but focus more on whether these taxes are useful.

The Wiki article details the proposed benefits of such taxes which include the revenue raised and the societal benefit of increased cost and the accompanying discouragement of sin. In this case the societal good is the weight loss that might be associated with reduced soda consumption and its attendant health benefits.

Sin Taxes have a long history in the United States with tobacco taxes being the most prominently known. For those of you, like me, who love history, you’ll be interested to know that Alexander Hamilton proposed the first tobacco tax back in 1794. The current federal tax is $1.01 per pack while state and even city taxes vary. In Missouri, my home state, the tax is $.17 per pack. It turns out this tax burden is far less than I was led to believe by tobacco companies and smokers in general although that is to be expected. Missouri’s tax is the lowest in the nation.

There is, in fact, a correlation between higher taxes and reduced consumption. So that part of the argument seems to be true. If the price point rises to a certain level then a segment of the population will stop using the product. However, at least one study indicate that smokers and obese people are actually less of a financial burden on the health-care system because they die much earlier than healthy people.

One of the main arguments against Sin Taxes, and proposed nationwide consumption taxation, is that they are regressive in nature. What is meant by this is that two people who smoke a pack a day are taxed equally but one is wealthy and the other poor. Thus the poor person is paying a far higher percentage of their total income. In essence the tax forces poor people to quit or bear a much higher percentage burden. This could be deemed discriminatory.

There is no doubt that companies push such tax hikes onto the consumer but that is really beside the point. Studies indicate that raising taxes on soda will generate revenue for cities and will drive down consumption. Whether that consumption rate decline will result in less obesity and medical expenses is in doubt. It is certainly the right of cities, states, and the federal government to tax.

As a Libertarian I think people should largely be allowed to make their own decisions and government shouldn’t be in the business of discouraging or encouraging personal lifestyle choices. Contrarily I also think that all people and businesses enjoy the benefits of government building and maintaining roads, bridges, sewer systems, schools, and utility infrastructure and should pay for that boon. Back to the other side, I think taxing “sin” sends a bad message. We don’t want you to do something but we’ll happily take your money for doing it.

It’s a tough question. Certainly they have the right to tax soda but is it a reasonable exercise of government power?

I have to come to the conclusion that it’s legal but I don’t like it. I like taxes to be directly related to a function of government. A gas tax should go directly to roads and bridges. A property tax should go to schools. An airline tax should go to airports and their employees. Cigarette and Soda taxes should go towards public health-care costs if they are deemed to be an expense. When all the tax dollars are mixed and mingled strange accounting starts to happen and it becomes a magnet for waste and theft. Just as a quick example; let’s imagine all the money taken for Social Security was put into safe, low-interest bearing accounts and doled out only to those who paid in. It would be fully funded and not only fiscally solvent but be running huge profits by now.

I think that is a better solution than taxing soda but it would require a large effort. An effort that is worthwhile in my opinion. Have taxes support the specific government function to which they are related. If soda costs money in health-care then the tax should be used for that purpose. I’m not convinced reducing soda consumption will reduce obesity and even if it did that such effect would lower health-care costs. Thus, I don’t think a soda tax is reasonable.

What do you think? Tell me in the comments.

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

Great Movie Monday – Rollerball

Posted on by

RollerballI’m sometimes accused of being a bit of a downer and I can see how my relentless Libertarian, Randian opinion along with all my philosophical rhetoric might become a bit tiresome. I thought I’d break things up with Movie Mondays for a few weeks at least and list some of all-time favorite movies.

Of course, I can’t be completely frivolous and I’ll talk about why the movies I enjoy often have a Libertarian spirit. We’ll start with my absolutely favorite movie of all time and one that is right up the Randian alley of objectivism.

Rollerball (the 1975 version). I prefer to pretend the remake never happened. There was a remake? Really? Never knew that. Was it any good?

Rollerball tells the story of Jonathon E, played by James Caan. It is a dystopian future in which corporate entities have taken over the world and brought peace, health, and comfort to the masses at the expense of freedom. One thing about the movie I find interesting is while it promotes the ideas of Objectivism and Ayn Rand it is a world that is exactly the opposite of what she feared in 1950’s communist leery America. She feared communism not corporate corruption although she certainly recognized that thugs could take leadership roles in place of true people of achievement.

In any case, the point of the game of Rollerball is to show the futility of individual action. This is demonstrated by the sheer difficulty and violence of the game in which one man cannot excel long without being incapacitated by opponents. Jonathon E is the exception to this rule as he has become the one true superstar as he leads the Houston (Energy) team to victory. It is decided that Jonathon must be stopped and the movie is about the corporations trying to make that happen in various ways.

It is a raw film. In one scene a woman is sent to Jonathon as a lover but she is truly a spy and agent of the corporations. Before he leaves for the Tokyo game where the rules have been changed to promote more violence and hopefully the death of Jonathon this woman tells Jonathon that she is “supposed” to go with him. He throws her down and slashes her upper cheek with the spike on his Rollerball glove. This sort of violence against a woman is both shocking and telling about Jonathon. He is a man who will take enemies on without subtlety. Then, fearing that his private helicopter is sabotaged he flies with the team to Tokyo.

Eventually the corporations try to bribe Jonathon with his ex-wife and she pleads with him not to play in the final game because the rule changes have ensured that everyone will be maimed (no time limit to the game). She argues for the corporations with this line:

“But comfort is freedom. It always has been. The whole history of civilization is a struggle against poverty and need.”

Jonathon replies:

“No! No… that’s not it. That’s never been it! Them privileges just buy us off.”

Clearly a marker of the world we live in today.

Jonathon understands that individual achievement is what drives a society forward. One man or one woman with drive, spirit, and ideas. Sure, they form alliances and teams but it is the power of the individual that makes it all possible. Jonathon realizes that and so he goes on.

In the end Jonathon emerges triumphant by doing the one thing that can win the game. I’ll leave it to you to see the movie.

Tell me your favorite movie, and why, in the comments!

Tom Liberman

The Great Soda Wars

Posted on by

Big SodaMy post the other day about the dangers of idealism leads me to today’s topic, The Great Soda Wars.

There is a proposal in New York by the mayor, a former Republican now Independent, to curb the size of soda containers. The idea being to limit the large, single serving, soda containers which are now up to 64 oz. The medical dangers of being overweight are well established and soda seems to be one of the prime movers of that phenomenon. The article goes on to list other dangers of drinking too much of the sugary beverage.

The government does have a duty to protect its citizens and dangers come in many forms. However; I’m not sure that drinking myself to death classifies. There is an interesting correlation with Prohibition in which alcohol was banned because of its deleterious effects. This didn’t work out so well. However, in this case they are not banning soda but simply limiting a serving size. One argument against this is the Slippery Slope idea wherein if we allow one supposedly “good” law to pass it will lead to more drastic and “bad” laws. I’m not a big fan of the slippery slope argument, let us judge each piece of legislation on its own merits.

Let’s take a critical look at the legislation. The problem it hopes to solve is the imbibing of huge amounts of soda. The solution proposed is to limit the container size available. This would prevent someone from making a single purchase of a large soda but there doesn’t seem to be much to prevent them from going back for a second soda or even bringing their own, larger, container, purchasing two or three, and then filling said cup. Thirdly it artificial removes a purchase option for consumers and a sale item for retailers. One that the consumer wants and the retailer makes a profit from selling.

Again, the only real benefit I see is that some people might stick with the smaller single serving when they might have otherwise been tempted by pricing schemes to purchase the larger container. I just don’t see this as a big enough bonus to enact such legislation. I’m not totally opposed to government intervention to increase the health and safety of Americans but if there is going to be such legislation the benefits must be overwhelming and the danger clear.

On the whole I think the only real solution is to educate people as best as possible to the dangers of too much sugar or too much alcohol or too much heroine. Next, teach people how to think critically and make good decisions. Hooray, problem solved!

Ok, not really. We can’t force people to behave in a non-destructive manner and maybe we should give up trying. Instead give them information and the ability to think clearly.

This whole debate does make me think about Jamie Oliver and his quest to bring good food to schools. I think I’ll soon post about how a capitalistic strategy trumps legislative attempts. See you then!

Thanks to the guys at the lunch table for helping me think this post through!

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

Idealism and its Dangers

Posted on by

Idealism versus PracticalityI found myself reading political stories this weekend as President Obama and Mr. Romney begin their campaign in earnest. It’s going to be an ugly few months, particularly for those of us with a Libertarian point of view and our candidate, Mr. Johnson of New Mexico all but shut out of consideration.

One of things I find most disturbing about politics in the United States these days is the over reliance on idealism and the relegation of pragmatism and practicality. Both main camps, and I include even Mr. Johnson although to a lesser degree, rely almost completely on rhetoric, dire predictions, outright threats, and simple-minded idealism.

There are numerous examples of this idealism over pragmatism in our campaigns these days but today I’m going to take on one that is near to the hearts of my Libertarian friends and often seems to ally them with Republican candidates. The idea of personal responsibility or moral responsibility.

The topic in question is eating habits. Whenever I see an article about how Americans are becoming increasingly unhealthy the primary response of Libertarians and Republicans is that people need to take personal responsibility and stop eating. Democrats on the other hand offer legislation to prevent businesses from selling a product that is clearly desired. It’s an interesting case of idealism against practicality.

From an idealistic point of view I couldn’t agree more with my Libertarian and Republican friend in that we are ultimately in charge of our own bodies and that eating ourselves to death is our choice. From the pragmatic point of view I’ve come to the realization that this philosophy is not going to work until we teach Objectivism and Critical Thinking skills to all children and, importantly, this is not on the horizon anytime soon. Furthermore, the increasing unhealthiness of America has a direct and negative effect on me. I pay higher health insurance rates, I have to deal with huge people taking up all the seats, I have to do the work of people medically unable because I’m physically, relatively, fit. I’m not a professional athlete but I go to the gym, try to eat healthy, and am genetically predisposed towards a smaller body type.

So, does that leave me in the camp of Democrats who want to legislate healthiness? In a word, no. First off it doesn’t work and secondly it interferes with my freedom to purchase what I want when I want.

Now comes the problem. What is to be done to solve the general unhealthiness of Americans? Idealism doesn’t work. Legislation doesn’t work. My long-term goal of educating young people about how to think critically is great but no immediate solution and one that I suspect will never be implemented.

So I come to the conclusion of minimalist government intrusion. I see no reason to allow food manufacturers to be deceitful in their practices. I’ve talked about this before but there is nothing wrong with labeling a product to list its contents and the means by which it got to your table. If people want to eat products that result from humane treatment of animals then let that market flourish. Over-regulation kills this idea of course in that anything labeled “Organic” is hardly that thanks to lobbying efforts to change the definition of things.

It’s a difficult tight-rope between over-regulation and no regulation. Information is the key. Make accurate information available to the consumers and then let them drive the capitalistic forces. I’m convinced that people want to be healthy and if given legitimate choices, clearly labeled, they will purchase more expensive products that are healthy, energy-conserving, or otherwise “good”. There will always be a market but convoluted over-regulation muddies the definition of everything while no regulation leads to outright fraud.

Try to get out of the idealistic mode of thinking whether or not you are a Democrat or a Republican. Instead try to come up with practical solution to real problems. Then maybe we can change the world.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian twist
Just Released: The Hammer of Fire

SpaceX and Private Industry

Posted on by

SpaceX Dragon CraftIt was a pretty exciting day yesterday for me and those who follow space exploration closely with the docking of SpaceX’s Dragon craft with the International Space Station (ISS). While perusing the comments below the article I found a great deal of misinformation being bandied about which is something I’ve noted for a while when it comes to President Obama’s plans for low earth exploration.

What I find fascinating about the criticism is that it seems to come largely from those who claim to espouse Libertarian ideals. Obama’s plan, basically, is to rely on private industry (with generous funding from NASA) to provide vehicles to get men and supplies into low earth orbit where the ISS resides. When he announced this budget for 2010 many Republicans immediately denounced it despite the fact that it was one of the president’s few forays into supporting Libertarian ideals. I see these same arguments today now that the plan is successfully coming to fruition.

This sort of behavior angers me. This is the downfall of a nation. When a man who we largely disagree with espouses a plan that is perfectly in line with our ideals we should pat him on the back, support him, tell him congratulations, and then, when the plan works get him to implement more of the same. Instead we see attack after attack aimed not at making the country better but at getting elected.

Getting elected is not more important than doing what is right for the country. I’ll repeat that phrase because it seems as if the voters largely don’t understand it. Doing what is in the best interest of the country is more important than getting elected. When the voters don’t understand this the officials they elect will clearly not either. That’s the point. The politicians aren’t the problem in this country. It’s the voters.

Now, don’t think I’m merely chastising Republicans. Democrats were all aboard Obama’s plan that if presented by President Bush they would have likely denounced. I see not even the faintest glimmer of cooperation towards a better country on capital hill and that reflects our voting habits.

I remember as a young idealistic liberal being very impressed with Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” program as compared to the get tough prison policy promoted elsewhere. Even then, in my youthful folly, I was able to acknowledge a good idea from someone who I largely disagreed with on most matters. We see how the War on Drugs has worked out. Go Nancy!

So, my plea to you, the voters, is to forget your party. Register Independent, vote Independent.

Go SpaceX and all the other companies propelling us forward into Space and go NASA!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Same-sex Marriage

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Marriage and Government

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Twist