Category Archives: Objectivism

Anti-Trust Legislation

Posted on by

anti-trustAs a Libertarian I’m largely against government interference in the freedom of people to do as they will. There are limits and one of those is anti-trust laws. These laws are put in place to make sure that competition is waged on a level playing field. This is an area, in my opinion, that separates Libertarianism from Anarchism.

In any case, the purpose of this blog is to talk about why anti-trust legislation is needed. To start things off I’ll talk about the definition anti-trust. I’m going to generalize and a full perusal of the anti-trust Wikipedia article and its linked definitions is a worthwhile study.

Anti-trust laws are designed to stop things like collusion and cartel. Collusion is when a group of people agree to limit open competition. It is usually marked by uniform pricing among competing items. A cartel is an open agreement to set prices at a certain threshold.

A second thing they are designed to prevent is market dominance and particularly monopoly. Both of these situations occur when one supplier controls such a large percentage of a particular commodity that they can set a price as they choose rather than being forced to offer a competitive price by competition.

Acquisitions are also under the purvey of these kinds of laws. If one company attempts to purchase all its competitors then monopoly or dominance ensues. Both of those things hurt the consumers ability to get product at a fair price.

There are host of other anti-competitive practices that include things like dumping; wherein a company forces competition out of the market through cheap pricing, refusing to deal; when a group of companies refuse to purchase from a particular vendor to put them out of business, dividing territories; when two or more companies agree not to compete with one another.

In my mind we need anti-trust laws for the same reason we need laws in the first place. It is human nature to take advantage of a situation in any way possible. One of the pro-capitalist arguments is that it caters to human nature and I agree with this but we must also take human nature into account when we make our laws. Anti-trust laws and general regulation hopefully provide a level playing field against unfair practices that hurt capitalism and the consumer.

If we can apply broad regulation that levels the playing field then the business that is operated most efficiently wins. I think it is important for the business community to understand that some regulation is required to prevent unethical people and businesses from dominating the market and putting all the ethical people out of work.

I’m almost finished here but I think I need to explain what I mean by broad regulation. I don’t recommend legislation that takes every possibility into account because that sort of law is doomed to failure. What I mean is more general types of regulation that simply allow each company to play on the same field.

We have laws that make sure manufacturers put the quantity of material in the food container on the package. This regulation is easy to comply with and understand. That’s the goal of all regulation, simple and cheap to implement for the producer, easy to understand for the consumer. It’s not always easy to achieve but I do think it is necessary to allow capitalism and the free market to thrive.

I welcome disagreement as always!

Like, Tweet, Stumble, LinkedIn, and otherwise share if you think this is something that might interest your friends.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Nuclear Plant

Nuclear Power – Pros and Cons

Posted on by

Nuclear PowerToday I’ll try to examine the arguments for and against Nuclear Power. It’s a controversial subject to say the least and I think it definitely needs a further study. It is also an incredibly important argument because energy is the driving factor in many of the issues the world and the United States face.

The need for energy in the modern world continues to rise and how we get that energy and who profits from payments for that energy is a key to future economic power. The rise of the fundamentalist Islamic state was certainly fueled by oil money more than any other factor and the revenue that will be generated by future, ever increasing, energy demands is a topic well worth discussion.

Wikipedia, as usual, rises to the occasion with an excellent article about the debate over Nuclear Power but I’ll try to summarize here as best as possible.

Energy Source

There is little argument here. Nuclear power is a tremendous energy source, just look at the sun, and has the potential to provide all the energy the world needs for the almost infinite future.

Energy Security

This is not about the safety of nuclear energy but about how a country can cut dependence on other nations for their energy demands. Again, for the United States, there is little argument here. Nuclear frees us from foreign dependence. We don’t have the oil reserves to sustain ourselves. I know, I know, we have shale. People, it doesn’t count. It’s not really feasible as a substitute for Light Sweet Crude and it’s not even better than coal for simple power plants. It’s filthy, expensive to extract, and basically not worth talking about compared to nuclear. If anyone tells you the U.S. has huge deposits of oil this is what they are talking about and they are, essentially, lying to you.

Reliability

Again, nuclear beats out wind, tide, and sun for its reliability. Always on, always ready. However, there is argument that nuclear plants are likely to shut down under extreme conditions. I see this but frankly, so are conventional plants. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that nuclear power is less reliable than other sources.

Economics

This is a difficult one to track down. The basic idea is how much does it cost to produce the same amount of energy from nuclear, coal, wind, sun, tide, etc. There are a number of studies on this and it is absolutely true that while at initial glance nuclear power seems cheap there are factors including massive government subsidies to start up plants. Many people will quote the cost of energy in France, very low, but they don’t take into account that the entire nuclear system was built with government money.

Fairly reliable data indicates nuclear costs more than coal, gas, and hydroelectric but less than others. However, as infrastructure for solar and wind increase their cost will drop. It’s a tough one to answer directly. I’d say it’s fair to call nuclear competitive.

Environmental Impact

This is one that nuclear appears to lose, hands down. But, on closer examination it actually does quite well, particularly in comparison to coal which has a large negative impact. Miners lose their lives, filth enters the air and water, etc. Nuclear is largely clean except if disaster strikes. But, when disaster strikes it is bad. Oil spills are bad as well. Clearly, wind, wave, and solar have a lesser impact but solar panels require chemicals to produce and wind turbines take their toll on wildlife. In conclusion I’d have to side with renewable energy on this one.

Waste

Ah, the Achilles Heel of nuclear power. What to do with the waste. One possibility is Thorium reactors which don’t produce nearly the large amount of toxicity of uranium and plutonium reactors. Still, they produce highly toxic waste. Storing this waste is a huge problem, not in that we don’t have vast tracts of land available to store it, but do we have the political will to open up those lands and drive the waste across the country to them?

Accidents

Another thorn in the side of nuclear power. Accidents happen and in nuclear power they can cause utter devestation. Still, oil spills cause far more damage every year than nuclear accidents. France has been on the nuclear grid for many years without a single mishap. Still, the more plants out there increases the chance of accidents like in Japan.

Proposed Fourth Generation plants are definitely safer and Thorium plants actually have very little chance of disaster as they cool naturally over time if a mishap occurs.

Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism

This is yet another problem for nuclear power. The byproduct of Uranium and Plutonium plants is material that can be converted into a powerful nuclear bomb. If stolen this presents a huge danger to the world. Thorium plants produce less dangerous material but still presents dangers.

All right, I’ve gone on pretty long here. I’ll save my conclusions until tomorrow but hopefully you have a better idea of the pros and cons of nuclear power.

Like, Tweet, Stumble, and comment if you feel the urge!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear Power – from a Critical Point of View

Posted on by

Nuclear powerNuclear Power is a controversial topic to be certain. In the next couple of days I’m going to try and look at the arguments for and against while applying my critical thinking skills to the debate.

I think first we have to actually define what nuclear power means. There are a lot of misconceptions and the topic is more than a little complicated. I don’t fully understand the nuances of the reaction by any stretch of the imagination but I’ll try to couch it in relatively easy to understand terms. By the way, this definition of a problem is critical in the analysis process. Read my Root Cause article.

Nuclear power plants, in their simplest concept, turn water into steam which is pressurized and fed into a steam turbine. The turbine then rotates and drives an electrical generator. Steam turbines of this nature account for about 90% of all electrical energy produced in the United States. A lot of this comes from coal and other non-nuclear sources but the basic process is similar.

Now, I know all my chemist and other scientifically knowledgeable friends and nieces will probably say this is too much of a simplification but my point isn’t really the process, so please bear with me.

In order to generate the heat to boil water and produce steam a nuclear reactor introduces an extra neutron into some uranium or plutonium. This generates a chain reaction wherein more and more of the uranium or plutonium splits into smaller elements and produces heat.

There are a number of arguments for and against nuclear power. I’ll get into the pros and cons tomorrow I just want to go over a few facts about how nuclear power is currently being used throughout the world.

It is estimated that about 16% of all electricity generated in the world comes from nuclear sources although because of ineffeciency of distribution it accounts for only about 2.6% of consumption.

The United States, France, and Japan are the leaders in production with France most of all depending on it for their energy demands. France in particular is used by proponents of nuclear power as a success story but there are nuances to that argument as well. Again, I’ll spend some time tomorrow talking about pros and cons.

Nuclear power also accounts for a huge percentage of the total energy produced in the universe. It’s what makes stars glow. That is something to think about.

I think I’ve laid out the concepts of nuclear power here pretty well and tomorrow I’ll talk about the pros and cons. I might end up having to split that into two articles because the arguments are complex and interesting and I like to keep these blogs relatively short so that you can read them easily during a break at work.

As always, tweet, comment, like, share, and otherwise tell your friends if you think this is worth reading.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Love

Love

Posted on by

Love Love. Once again Valentines Day has rolled around. Those of you in relationships find ways to show your love to one another and those of us who are single either look on bemusedly or with envy.

I could examine the commercial and predatory nature of the holiday but instead I will look at emotional thinking and its relationship with logical thinking. In all fairness I must admit that I tend towards logical thinking. I remember getting angry as a kid when Mr. Spock didn’t do the most logical thing!

I’m a proponent of logical thinking and when we let our emotions “get in the way” we often impair our decision making process. But, well, but. Emotion is not something that easily conforms to the Randian philosophy of objectivism. It is currently impossible to treat love or its counterpart hate like a scientific experiment. It isn’t something that is repeatable on a regular basis. People will argue that lighting, music, proximity and other factors certainly can “cause” love but at best it is an inexact science. The other factor that cannot be denied is that we are unable to remove our emotions completely. They will always play a role in the decision making process.

I think it’s clear that emotions can send us in the wrong direction. We’ve all made horrible decisions when we ignored the facts and let our emotions rule our thinking. The counterpart is true as well. Sometimes an emotional decision turns out well. Often when we take unreasonable chances it is because emotions control our thinking. The odds are against a particular plan but it works because we were fueled by powerful emotions. Great advances are possible because people take risks that seem foolhardy in retrospect. Of course, people die in similar circumstances.

So, what do we take from this debate of logic versus emotion?

Despite my love of logical, critical thinking, there is no denying the factor emotions play in the advancement of the human race. I must come to the conclusion that the two types of thinking are forever partnered. Awww. They complement one another and must work as a team to be successful.

Without logic we are doomed to misunderstanding situation after situation and our efforts are doomed to failure. Without emotion we cannot make the foolish decisions that end in greatness. I suppose it comes down to finding a fair balance of the two. I would lean towards giving logic the lions share of the process but to ignore emotion is to not truly live.

Happy Valentines Day!

Like, Tweet, Comment, Stumble, Plus, or otherwise share if you think others might be interested in these thoughts.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Root Cause

Root Cause

Posted on by

Blame GameToday I’m going to discuss the concept of root cause. This is the underlying cause of any problem. It is important to understand this because if we fail in our original estimation as to the root cause of a problem then any solution we might decide upon is going to be fundamentally flawed.

It is important for another reason as well; in order to get elected, receive a promotion, sell a product, or get ahead there are people out there who will attempt to distract us from the root cause of an issue in order to lay the blame on a tangential target. If we allow our critical thinking skills to fail then we can be fooled in making a poor decision. The more poor decisions we make the worse our life becomes.

The idea of a root cause is simple enough. I would suggest a lengthy perusal of the Wikipedia article linked above but it gives a good short checklist to find if a cause is root or  not.

  1. It is clearly a (or the) major cause of the symptoms.
  2. It has no worthwhile deeper cause. This allows you to stop asking why at some appropriate point in root cause analysis. Otherwise you may find your-self digging to the other side of the planet.
  3. It can be resolved. Sometimes it’s useful to emphasize unchangeable root causes in your model for greater understanding and to avoid trying to resolve them without realizing it.

What’s important to understand here is that we face this sort of critical thinking challenge multiple times every day. Every problem that we face needs a critical analysis. It is one of those things we must get into the habit of doing, like going to the gym, eating right, and trying to be patient when helping our aging parents with their computer issues. The more you go through the root cause analysis process the more it will become habit and the better your decisions will become.

Wikipedia again comes to the rescue with this root cause analysis article and, again, I suggest a lengthy perusal but I’ll try to sum it up quickly here.

  1. Define the problem! I can’t stress this one enough. Often we don’t even know what the problem is in the first place and we’re asking the wrong questions.
  2. Be systematic. This is crucial because we often have preconceived notions of blame. We often don’t want to blame ourselves because of something called Cognitive Dissonance. I will devote an entire blog to that topic soon. Look at all the possible explanations even the ones you would ordinarily dismiss.
  3. Be aware that after you find one root cause that you cannot stop. There can be multiple root causes.
  4. Develop a timeline. This can be extremely helpful in ordering root causes and contributory factors.

So, the idea here is to properly define a problem and its root causes and only then can we go about finding a solution. And that is why we do this. To find a real solution. Not the mumbo-jumbo solutions offered to us by politicians and policy makers. Real solutions to real problems. If you can do this regularly and effectively it will change your life and if we can get an entire nation of people doing it then it will change the world.

And now a simple example: You’ve noticed your clothes don’t fit you anymore.

Likely Causes: I’m eating too much, I have a medical condition, I’m exercising less, my clothes are shrinking.

Analysis: Count your calories and compare them to charts for someone of our size and age. Count the number of hours your exercise. Visit a doctor. Go to the store and try on some new clothes of the same size as the old.

You get the point. It’s important to do this because maybe it was a medical condition and you just saved your life. Try this approach to one problem a day and if that works, try two a day after a while. Get in the habit!

As always, Like, Tweet, Comment, Stumble, and otherwise tell your friends if you think this might be of interest to them.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

p.s. A loyal viewer sent me a link to an excellent website, Transparency International, in regards to my post on Crony Capitalism. Check it out.

Susan Komen – Planned Parenthood – Loyalty

Posted on by

I’m going to talk about the trait of loyalty in this post. It comes to my mind because of the recent stories about the Susan Komen Foundation and their contributions to Planned Parenthood. I don’t want to talk about the merit of cutting off their donations, the reasons behind the decision, or the reasons behind their reversal. These are all interesting topics but I’m going to write about loyalty.

There are two reasons this topic comes to mind today. One is that it is a theme of my first book, The Staff of Naught. The character of Oliver is supremely loyal to another character. I discuss this in length in this video.

I think most of us consider loyalty a good trait. The world is filled with people who have their own agenda and this is natural and normal. When we make friend, allies, business associates, and the like it is through loyalty that we succeed. There are other factors in success but it is difficult to get anywhere in life if you don’t have friends who watch your back. We all make mistakes and we all need friends who don’t betray us because it might make them some money or get them on the local news.

Now, there are limits to loyalty. While being a loyal person is ostensibly a good thing there are people who can use that against you. This is often called misplaced loyalty. They can demand your loyalty while essentially throwing you into the pit to be devoured by the beasts. But, by and large, I think being loyal to your friends and family is a great trait.

My best friends watch my back when I’m out and about. They try to talk me up to women who might interest me. At work my associates don’t wait for me to make a mistake and then badmouth me to the boss. There are people like that, people who want to get ahead at your expense, and it is your friends who help you time and again against them, often you don’t even know it has happened.

If we give no loyalty then we are diminished. Without loyal friends our lives are not full.

What I saw in the Komen/Planned Parenthood situation absolutely sickened me. An executive for the Komen Foundation is a foe of abortion and her influence was raised as a possibility for the original funding drop. The President and Founder of the Komen Foundation, Nancy Brinker, protected her friend. She said, no, that’s not the case, the decision was made because of legal issues that Planned Parenthood is facing. Nancy was a good friend. She protected her friend, tried to do what was right. That’s loyalty. That’s a good thing. Kudos to Nancy.

To repay Nancy, said executive immediately jumped on the self-promotion, live television bandwagon and proclaimed her a liar. She stabbed Nancy in the back to get ahead and to attack her enemy, Planned Parenthood. Disgusting. Vile. Disloyal. Here you go Nancy, I’ll tell the world you lied about me and about our reason for cutting off the funding so that I can get a little publicity and maybe pick up a high-paying job.

Well, anybody that hires said executive is getting a disloyal, self-serving, traitorous, bag of excrement. You’ve been warned.

Now, the second reason this topic comes to mind for me today is that my sister is having breast cancer surgery this morning. My thoughts are with her. My sister and I have never been all that close. We have different ways of looking at the world. If you say something bad about her I’ll pop you in the mouth.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist.

I blame you … and me

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here it is. Teach people to think critically.

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

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Clint Eastwood – Advertising – Politics

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If so, I have one suggestion:

Stop voting. You’re hurting this great country.

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

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Censorship by Country

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think in the comments.

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

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

NFL Pro Bowl – Effort

Posted on by

The NFL Pro Bowl was a sorry affair according to all who saw it. The idea I want to explore today is exactly what sort of effort was required from the players to make it an entertaining event and how this sort of obligation effects our own lives.

Let’s look at some of the reasons the players would choose not to play hard.

  1. Professional Football is a particularly violent sport and injuries are common.
  2. The game has no effect on the standings of the teams.
  3. Football is a team sport and the players are unfamiliar with one another and have had little time to practice.

I think we can all see the power of the first argument and the fact that players don’t want to risk career ending injuries in a game of this nature. The baseball All Star game fell prey to this same malaise, so much so that a new rule was created to enliven the game. The NHL All Star game has long been a showcase for offense with defense taking a back seat and the normal fierce body checking all but eliminated.  The NBA All Star game is such that pregame events are more exciting than the game itself.

The other two arguments resonate with me as well and I do see good reason to, at least, play a bit more easily and let the offensive stars showcase their talent.

Now let’s see what motivations the players have to play hard football.

  1. It’s entertaining for the fans.
  2. Professional pride in doing their job.

The first argument is a tough one to nail down because not all fans are entertained by the same thing. Some fans love a defensive struggle while others like an high scoring, high flying game. It’s fair to say that most fans came away from this year’s Pro Bowl feeling dissatisfied.

I think it is also accurate that interest in the various All Star game has declined, probably because of the exposure the players get on multiple media outlets. Twenty years ago All Star games were a chance for people to see the stars of other teams for the first time. Now, we can see them pretty much as often as we desire.

Professional pride is an interesting argument as well. I’m all about professional pride but when the outcome of my efforts make no difference, or very little difference, it does become hard to put forward maximum effort. I think the world would be a better place if we all gave it our best but it is unrealistic to expect people to work their hardest under every circumstance.

I suppose, in conclusion, the lesson to be learned is that when the value of an event is reduced it is only natural to expect  people to put forward less effort and there are probably few artificial ways around this fact. We can try to assign value to something but people generally see through such subterfuge.

If you want people to put forward their best effort then there has to be good reason for them to want to do so. This goes for business projects, school, sport, and most aspects of life.

So get out there and give people good reason to shine and you might be surprised by the result.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Twitter and your Future

Posted on by

I read a recent story about how a pair of British students were stopped at the United States border by Homeland Security because of a couple of harmless tweets. We don’t know the full story because there might have been other reasons for the detainment but that’s not really what this post will be about.

What I think it is quite fascinating is the potential of twitter and social media as a whole to effect our future as a country.

We’ve seen quite a number of stories, like this, where someone’s future was effected by social media. A youthful indescretion captured forever on Facebook, a silly statement made in the heat of the moment forever preserved in a tweet, all of these things have an effect. My question is not the effect on the individual but on the society.

One of Ayn Rand‘s constant themes is that those who are exceptional must be allowed to succeed in society for that society to, in turn, succeed itself. Social media seems to be a double edged sword in this regard. People who are bold, daring, speak their mind are weeded out because they offend. On the other hand, the same sort of behavior often catapults people into the spotlight and success.

Anyone who knows me is aware that I think the increased scrutiny on politicians and their personal lives is a negative. It discourages the best and brightest from participating because they don’t want to subject their families and friends to that sort of media pressure. I’m of the opinion, at this moment at least, that the quickness to judge one tweet or one Facebook photo as a weapon to hold back a person is a net negative on society. We lose the bold and we also chill open exchanges of thoughts and ideas.

I don’t think Twitter, Social Media, mainstream media, blogs, or any of the other methods of modern communication are going away and I personal benefit from the ability to publish my own books, post my thoughts, and in other ways interact with the world.

What I would suggest is that we reward those bold enough to state their opinions even if we disagree with them. We want strong, active people in the positions of power in our society. Instead of calling for someone to be fired or step-down from an election, reply with your own ideas, encourage the exchange of thoughts, the dialectic as it were.

Tell me what you think in the comments, subscribe, like, you know what I’m saying!

Tom Liberman
Sword and sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Correcting Errors

Posted on by

There was an interesting, from my perspective, moment during the presidential primaries the other day that I thought was worth a more in-depth analysis. During one of Rick Santorum’s town-hall meetings a woman shouted out that President Obama was an “avowed muslim”. Who knows, the president might be a closet muslim although there seems no evidence to support this, but the statement that he is an avowed muslim is clearly false.

When asked why he let the statement go without challenging it Santorum said, “Why do you guys ask these ‘Gotcha’ questions like it’s my job to go out and correct everybody who says something I don’t agree with?”

The inference is that it is not his responsibility to correct everyone who shouts out during one of his speeches. Certainly, there are a lot of people out there who think things are true that are not and is it somehow our responsibility to correct them?

I’d like to start the discussion with a more localized examination. How many times during an average week does someone say something in a conversation that you know to be inaccurate? What percentage of the time do you correct them? Now, we’re not talking about something that might be false but something you absolutely know to be inaccurate.

I’m not sure if I’m the best judge of this because when someone says something incorrect around me I pounce like a cheetah on a wounded gazelle, it’s not pretty. I’ve been known to anger a few people over the years, just ask anyone who knows me.

It is particularly galling to me when someone who agrees with my general position says something that is factually inaccurate. I pissed off a Facebook friend under these circumstances just a few days ago. I haven’t heard from her since. Should I have stayed silent?

What do you do in those situations? What is our personal responsibility in those cases?

I think it is important that we correct the person if not immediately then shortly thereafter, privately if possible. If we don’t make the correction then they are likely to continue to spout their claims and might even convince other people of the veracity of the argument. Often they don’t know they are wrong but are simply repeating what they heard someone else say.

Now, let’s examine the situation from the position of a person running for the presidency. If I have a responsibility to correct people for relatively minor mistakes in private conversations it seems to me that is vitally important that the men and women who vie for power must be held to an even higher standard.

This topic quickly leads to the question of why politicians tell us only things we want to hear. The simple reason is that it gets them elected. That’s another conversation.

My conclusion, we must strive to be as accurate as possible in all things. I now eagerly await my mother’s grammar corrections.

Tom Liberman
Sword and sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian twist

Finnish School

Posted on by

My friend’s son Peter, posted an article on Facebook about how Finnish school systems are among the most elite in the world. The article focused on the Finnish goal of equity being the primary reason for their outstanding performance and ignored, I thought, the more relevant issues.

The important factor seemed to be that level of personal responsibility the teachers take on in that school system. There is no standardized testing because the teachers individually grade students. The key quote is; Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted.

It took me a second to deconstruct what that meant but it turns out to be a concept directly from Ayn Rand and her objectivist point of view. The idea is that if the teachers are personally responsible for their actions then no one has to check up on their accountability.

The more I thought about it the more it I came to the conclusion that accountability is really just a word for covering my ass. If people are always responsible then we don’t have to worry if they are doing their job properly. Even if something goes wrong it was an honest mistake.

Of course, the practical application comes in trying to teach the next generation how to be personally responsible for their actions. Sadly, I don’t think the current generations is setting a particularly good example which is probably the most important factor.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery, fantasy novels with a Libertarian twist