Category Archives: Politics

Government Week – Meritocracy

Posted on by

GovernmentWe’ve reached the final day of Government Week, hold the applause, and I want to spend it discussing a form of government that does not exist, Meritocracy. It is defined thusly: Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are objectively assigned to individuals based upon their “merits”, namely intelligence, credentials, and education, determined through evaluations or examinations.

The general trouble with the idea of Meritocracy is defining who is the best. In a Representative Republic like the United States that is determined by polling the people and coming up with an answer. This is a good way to get representatives that people want but not necessarily a good way to get the people best suited for the job. However, I’m of the opinion that it can be both!

What needs to happen is that the voters must do a better job of objectively determining what candidate is going to be well suited to the position. Another factor, and an important one, is that people who are best suited to govern must be encouraged to run for office. I’m of the opinion that the current political environment in the U.S. doesn’t attract the sorts who are good at making the country better. Instead, people encouraged to run seem to be those with massive egos and those whose primary interest is having power and using it enrich themselves and those who bribe them enough.

Ayn Rand writes of a certain character type in her novels. When people of achievement are not rewarded for their efforts then they do not try to succeed anymore and into that vacuum comes the Thug. The Thug wants power to hurt other people and enrich him or herself. The Thug is incompetent and enjoys squashing those who are competent. The Thug hires more thugs and puts them in key positions. They are good at manipulation and pitting people against each other to distract them from real issues. They are good at defeating high achievers. Thugs are generally charming and good looking with a way of saying catchy but meaningless things. The Thugs destroy what they touch and laugh all the way to bank while doing it. U.S. politics is currently dominated by Thugs.

So, Tom, you may ask, how do we get the achievers to run for office and make my community, my state, my country, my world a better place? Easy. Vote for candidates who are qualified to lead. Don’t vote for candidates who focus you on nonsense issues and twist every word their opponent says into something malign. Don’t vote for candidates that grossly misrepresent opponent’s plans of action. Don’t vote for a candidate that tells you his or her opponent is evil or a total failure. Don’t vote for a candidate that says they have all the answers. Vote for candidates who care more about the U.S. than they do about winning an election. Vote for candidates who have read the Constitution of the United States and like it. Vote for candidates who think critically and not with their faith. Vote for the best candidate even if you don’t agree with everything they say and the rest will fall into place.

The power is in your hands, use it.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Government Week – Theocracy

Posted on by

GovernmentToday’s topic in government week is Theocracy. It is rule by religion or as generally defined: Theocracy is a form of government in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion.

The most common place we see this form of government today is in Islamic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is generally totalitarian in nature in that religion often has little room for those who disagree. This hasn’t historically been true completely as some theocratic states in the past have allowed those of different religions to flourish. More normally other religions are persecuted under this form of government. In the United States Mormon’s founded the State of Deseret but this was disbanded before they became a state.

The Founding Fathers explicitly forbid this form of government in the United States.

Theocracy is different from a state sponsored religion wherein the government officially endorses one religion or another but has laws separate from it. In a theocracy the state is considered to be run by appointees of god with rules handed down by god. This is probably the most troubling aspect of a theocratic state. If the laws are handed down by god they must be interpreted as infallible. Thus there is no mechanism for correction.

One of the concerns of Christians in the western world is the institution of Sharia Law in their countries by burgeoning muslim populations. Interestingly, much like christian law if taken from, say, the Ten Commandments much of this the antithesis of the freedom and individual responsibility that Libertarian’s like myself advance.

For example, both have laws about tithing or alms which is giving money to the religious leaders but would come under the concept of illegal taxation from a Libertarian point of view. Both have laws against adultery which again would be opposed by a Libertarian who believes the state should have no say in such matters. Both have laws against homosexuality and once again Libertarians argue the state does not belong in such matters. Both generally forbid people from other religions to hold important offices within the state.

Penalties doled out in theocracy tend to be extreme. In most religious states the penalty for adultery is stoning.

I could go on here but I think it’s relatively clear to most people that the rule of law is not handed down by god. For my Christian readers I highly suggest a full reading of the ten commandments. I think you will be surprised at the text. Anyone who told you they are basis for law in the U.S. is not being honest.

Theocratic rule is a constant danger in that people who live by Faith Based Thinking standards are not constrained by logic, by evidence, by common sense. They know they are right without examination simply because they believe. This absence of critical thinking necessarily leads to an oppressive, freedomless state as we see in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. People in such countries yearn for their freedom and in places like Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia we see an Arab Spring wherein the population rises up against oppressive rule. The danger, of course, is that one oppressive regime will be replaced by a theocracy that is equal or worse in their fear of freedom.

Thanks for reading and share away!

[polldaddy poll=6065412]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Government Week – Plutocracy

Posted on by

GovernmentMost of you have probably never heard of this form of government and yet I’d be willing to wager that you’ve either complained about how the United States is becoming more like this or at least argued against someone who made that claim. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy.

The ancient Roman Republic which was in some ways the model of the modern U.S. was a Plutocracy as the ruling Senate was largely made up of wealthy people who were the only ones eligible for the position. In the U.S. this is not true and the Founding Fathers saw the danger in such a system creating our current bicameral chambers in which the House of Representatives is elected by direct vote. The Senate of the U.S. was originally an appointed position but that has changed. See my blog on this subject for further information. To be fair the original system only allowed land owning white males to vote which was essentially rule by the upper class.

In the U.S. the wealthy have always been allowed raise money and support particular candidates but bribery itself is illegal. However, in recent years and particularly thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision that money is now flowing in ever greater quantities to candidates.

My father told me years ago that it shouldn’t be illegal to give to one candidate in a campaign but when you give to both sides it is nothing other than bribery. My father tends towards the hyperbole in these situation but I must admit that I agree with him on this one. The other issue is that groups of people, be they unions, Political Action Committees, corporate entities, or some other assembly are now allowed to raise money and donate it to a campaign of their particular interest. The upshot of this is that a group can target a campaign where one candidate is vulnerable.

For example, I can start a PAC, raise money from donations from all over the world, and then put that money into a campaign in Idaho. I’m from Missouri and have no representative stake in an election in Idaho. This influx of money to support a particular candidate occurs even before the general election with the primaries in which the candidate from one of the two major parties must bow before the powers of that party in order to get the funds necessary to be elected. Elected officials who do not vote as ordered find themselves without funds in the next election cycle.

This has a chilling effect on that candidate’s votes once elected. They are financially and emotionally obligated to the people who paid for their election. Bribery, in short.

This isn’t exactly new and prior to the 17th Amendment Senators were so obligated to the state legislatures rather than to moneyed influences.

In this series so far I’ve mainly just described government types without commenting particularly but I’ll break that trend today to offer what I consider to be some reasonable solutions to the untoward influence money is bringing to campaigns. I think that politicians who are honorable and want to make their district, country and world a better place would welcome the removal of moneyed influence so they can simply vote their ideological position.

I’m of the opinion that individuals should be allowed to contribute any amount desired to a campaign in which they have a representative interest. I’m from District 3 in Missouri so I can donate to that campaign for the House of Representatives, to a Senator from my state’s campaign or to a presidential candidate. I should not be able to donate to any other campaign or to both candidates in any race. Likewise no group of people should be allowed to collect money to donate to any campaign. If someone wants to give three million dollars to a candidate then so be it. But groups are out and donations to a particular party’s “war chest” are forbidden.

Also, I think all election cycles should be limited in time. The House of Representatives get thirty days to run their primary and the same for the general campaign. The Senate should revert back to state legislature appointment although if not limit them to forty-five days. The presidential campaign should be a three month primary season and a three month general election. No campaigning of any kind should be allowed otherwise.

It’s a fairly extreme solution and might face some constitutional questions. It does give some advantage to incumbents whose names are already known but they have an advantage under any system.

Tell me what you think in the comments below and share away!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Government Week – Anarchism

Posted on by

GovernmentYesterday I spoke about Totalitarianism as a form of government and today I thought I’d turn that idea completely around and talk about Anarchism. An anarchist basically argues that state control is harmful to society and that government in general is unnecessary and causes more damage than it solves.

As a Libertarian this idea has merit to me but I don’t see it working in any practical manner. What I do see is many of my Libertarian friends being so disillusioned with government that they lean towards Anarchism rather than Libertarianism. This is a dangerous leaning from my perspective. Let’s get back to Anarchism.

The general definition is: The political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.

An anarchist believes that society can run much like The Valley from Ayn Rand‘s Atlas Shrugged. The Valley is where achievers are allowed to achieve without any interference from government. It is an idealized location, cut off from the surrounding world, and only those deemed worthy are invited to join. This is where I have a problem with Libertarians. I don’t think this island is a good test for the ideas of Ayn Rand. In my own novel, The Staff of Sakatha, I have a valley like nation where the Freeriders roam. I talk about this idea more fully in this video.

Again, let’s get back to the topic at hand. The earliest we find anarchism in the world is by a fellow named Zhuangzi who wrote: A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a Nation. Powerful words true even today.

There are some who consider Jesus Christ a Christian Anarchist although the term anarchist didn’t enter the English language until the 17th Century during the English Civil War.

Modern Anarchism emerged with a fellow by the name of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and then another man named William Godwin. Much of what we consider organized labor sprang from the ideas of anarchism and state sponsored enslavement of workers that was seen at the outset of the industrial revolution.

An interesting topic of discussion was the United States willingness to limit corporate power through legislation making unions legal and the fact that Russia refused to do so. Eventually the abuses became so terrible in Russia the people had a revolution whereas the U.S. form of government remained intact. Perhaps fodder for another post.

Terrorism also has some roots in anarchy as public acts of violence were advocated by anarchists of the time who were being actively suppressed by the state. The rise of fascism is sometimes seen as a movement against the anarchy of the time.

Modern anarchism is broken into two schools of thought, the Social Anarchist and the Individual Anarchist. Both generally believe that the state lacks the ability to morally and ethically allow people their freedom and exists generally for the purposes of tyranny.

This post could go on and on as the topic is endlessly fascinating, you probably don’t agree :), but I think  I’ve given you at least the gist of the idea of anarchism and anarchists.

Share if you think a friend my find this interesting,

[polldaddy poll=6057946]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Government Week – Totalitarianism

Posted on by

GovernmentGovernment week starts off with one of the most vilified forms known to man, Totalitarianism. A number of government types fall under this general umbrella including monarchy, fascism, nazism, and Soviet Union and Chinese style communism. All of these states are defined by the attempt of government to have complete control over aspect of its citizens lives.

The official definition of totalitarianism is: Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

This usually includes state controlled mass media which the United States Constitution forbids. There is generally only a single political party to which all citizens who hope to advance socially, financially and politically, must belong. It often uses what is called personal cultism. This is essentially making the leader or leaders of the states godlike. We saw this idea as far back as ancient Greece and continuing all the way through modern North Korea.

There are generally severe restrictions on speech against the party in power which again the U.S. Constitution forbids. Another hallmark is mass surveillance of its citizens. Again the U.S. Constitution forbids this. Anyone getting the idea that the Founding Fathers knew what they were about?

Totalitarian regimes generally control all aspects of the economy and use terror as a weapon to keep the population in line. It was formulated as a political concept in Italy in the 1920’s although it has existed in a defacto manner since people first assembled. Benito Mussolini said, Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

There are differences between Authoritarian Regimes and Totalitarian Regimes but I’m hoping only to give a general outline of the various forms of government this week so if the topic interests you I’d suggest a full perusal of the Wikipedia articles.

An interesting book, which I haven’t read, called The True Believer by an equally interesting man Eric Hoffer, suggests that totalitarian regimes often have their roots in picturing western style republics as soft, decadent, and selfish. We see those argument today in the Middle East where Totalitarianism still thrives. I’ll be talking about Theocracy later this week.

I hope this gives you a better idea of what other people are saying when the compare someone to a Nazi or a Soviet Style Communist. Let me know if you think this was helpful with the poll below and Like, Tweet, Comment, share, or otherwise freely use the media the Constitution guarantees.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Afghanistan Massacre

Posted on by

WarI wanted to look at a serious topic today in regards to the United States soldier who murdered a number of Afghanistan citizens. From what I see there is considerable debate about the usefulness of releasing the name of Staff Sergeant Bales to the general public. It’s been released so the debate is moot but I think it’s important to understand whether or not releasing the name is good idea.

The argument against releasing the name boils down to the idea that the facts of the case have not been adjudicated in a court of law and giving out the soldier’s name puts his family in a terrible position. He is accused of an awful crime and, even if exonerated, he and they are stained by the accusation forever.

The arguments for releasing the name is that, like anyone charged with criminal behavior, their name is publicly available.

The unusual circumstances are that the crime took place in a foreign country by a U.S. soldier. I’m of the opinion that these unusual circumstances make it even more imperative that his name be released. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the military and political supporters of the war seem to have had a propaganda orientated mindset in place to support the war.

The first incident I remember with clarity was that of Jessica Lynch. She was a member of the Quartermaster Corps and when the vehicle in which she rode was attacked she ended up being captured. The military immediately put forth a completely fabricated story about the event. To her credit, when rescued she told the truth.

The next incident that comes to mind is the treatment of prisoners in the Abu Graib prisoner-of-war camp. Beware, there are graphic images through that link. Again, the military did all it could to pretend that nothing was wrong until picture evidence began to emerge and some consequences were eventually doled out. There is some evidence to suggest that the activities were known to and approved by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

The incident that is most striking in my mind involved fellow atheist and soldier Pat Tillman. The manner of is death, possible murder, was covered up at the highest levels of the military almost from the moment it happened. His parents were lied to, his platoon mates were ordered to lie, military officials actively blocked investigations, and the truth may never be known.

Now, the reason I mention all these events, which occurred under the President George W. Bush administration, is the effect they have on serving military personnel.

Let me digress for a moment. At your work, how does it make you feel when a poor employee is given a raise or promoted? How does it make you feel when someone who breaks rules is covered up for by administration?

Every time we cover up the truth, no matter how painful, we dishonor all the soldiers who serve with honor and distinction. Every time we sweep our dirty laundry under the bed we encourage the dishonorable to go about their business. We discourage the good people and encourage bad ones. Conversely, when we punish those who commit crimes we encourage all those who serve with honor. This is my point. We must release the name of the wrongdoer to show our wonderful soldiers that we support them. It seems, at first glance, to undermine them but it is actually the opposite. Hiding the blemishes only makes the worst sorts bolder in their behavior and the best more timid.

If we hide the soldier who murdered the civilians we do ourselves, his family, his fellow soldiers, and our country no favors. Let the truth shine as brightly upon our mistakes as upon our successes and our nation will thrive. Those who commit crimes must be punished just as those who do good deeds must be rewarded. That is Libertarianism and personal responsibility.

Let me know what you think about releasing the soldiers name in the poll below and share this article if you think it’s a worthwhile read.

[polldaddy poll=6051101]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Freedom of Religion

Posted on by

Freedom of ReligionI think one of the most interesting clauses in the Constitution of the United States is that of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion. Recent events bring up intriguing issues in regards to its enforcement and that is the topic of my blog today.

Anyway, let’s start with the actually wording of the clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

This clause is often referenced as the Establishment Clause and is generally interpreted to:

  1. Prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress
  2. Prohibit the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another

Early on there were established State Religions and generally prior to the Fourteenth Amendment this clause was interpreted to restrict the federal government but not the states. In fact, eight states still legally refuse to allow Atheist to hold office although the Supreme Court has ruled this unenforceable.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is an extremely interesting subject and perhaps I’ll take that on in a future blog. Basically, this clause has expanded the interpretation of the Establishment Clause to the states. So that now individual states are under the same restrictions as the federal government. I could spend quite some time discussing the relative value of this expansion but it’s not really the topic I’d like to take on today.

Today I want to discuss how individual and organizational religious beliefs are now being protected. There are any number of cases working their way through the courts but the gist of all of them is that an individual or group is immune to legal  requirements because of their religion. For example, a Catholic pharmacist can refuse to prescribe birth-control pills or a hospital might be able to refuse to provide contraception to workers on their health plan. A deeply religious person might be able to legally assault someone who offends their belief system.

Freedom of religion cuts both ways.

The idea that the federal and state governments must allow people to worship religiously of their own accord with no undue influence is, in my opinion, a good plan. The original clause is relatively simple, the state cannot force me, in any way, to worship a particular religion. They cannot lead me in forced prayer, they cannot force me to attend a particular place of worship, they cannot pass a law making my belief system illegal.

The problem comes in defining worship. There are no easy answers here. Is beating up atheists a requirement of my religion? Is killing infidels a requirement of my religion? Does my opposition to birth control make me immune to a law that requires me to pay insurance benefits? It’s an endless debate that grows ever more complex and threatens religious freedom for Atheists, Christians, Wiccans, Muslims, Taoist, and all the rest.

As a Libertarian I think a much more restrictive interpretation solves a great number of these issues. If we simply prevent the establishment of religion by the state and prevent laws giving preference to one religion or another we go a long way towards eliminating these questions. If a hospital is legally obligated to pay for health insurance they must do so. If a man assaults another he must face the consequences. If a teacher leads a non-mandatory prayer then they can do so. If a state wants to say a prayer before assembly they can provided it is not mandatory and penalties are not applied to those who don’t take part. A school must be allowed to cover the ideas evolution and creationism but cannot only teach one.

Don’t enforce your religion on me. It’s that simple. Believe what you will but established laws otherwise apply.

This one is sure to anger people on both sides of the political landscape but hopefully I’ve explained why a Libertarian point of view, in which the state’s influence is minimized, is often best at preventing the majority from enforcing their will on the minority and allows us all our freedom, religious or otherwise.

Share, Comment, Like, Tweet, Pinterest, Plus1, and otherwise let your friends know about this blog if you think they might be interested.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Science Rocks

Science Week – Modern Medicine

Posted on by

ScienceDay two of my science extravaganza is here and I’m going to talk about modern, western medicine. The reason I think this topic is important is because of how it has affected all our lives. I do not think modern medicine is perfect and some alternative choices have merit but I’m a major proponent of research and modern cures.

I’m going to start it off with a description of a diabetic ward in 1912 Canada. Dr. Frederick Banting, his student Charles Best, and biochemist James Collip used newly purified insulin for the first time. If you can read this and complain about modern medicine … well … I have no words for you.

Children dying from diabetic ketoacidosis were kept in large wards, often with 50 or more patients in a ward, mostly comatose. Grieving family members were often in attendance, awaiting the (until then, inevitable) death.

In one of medicine’s more dramatic moments, Banting, Best, and Collip went from bed to bed, injecting an entire ward with the new purified extract. Before they had reached the last dying child, the first few were awakening from their coma, to the joyous exclamations of their families.

Now I’ll go onto some statistics.

  • In the 18th century Smallpox killed an estimated 400,000 people a year. Today it is eradicated. Thank you, Vaccine Act of 1813 and Louis Pasteur.
  • Maternal death rate was historically around 1%. In modern, western countries it is now around .024%. That’s about 976 more mothers alive per 100,000 births. Thank you, Ignaz Semmelweis and Lawson Tait.
  • In 1952 58,000 cases of polio were reported in the United States resulting in 3,000 deaths and 21,000 cases of mild to disabling paralysis. In 1994 the Americas were declared Polio free. Thank you, World Health Organization, UNICEF, and The Rotary Foundation.
  • Whooping Cough effects 48 million people worldwide and kills 295,00 people a year. In the 1940 it was reduced to 1 case in 100,000 in the U.S but declining vaccination has produced an increase in cases. Whooping Cough vaccine doesn’t last a lifetime and must be retaken. Recent negative publicity has caused a drop of vaccination rates. Whooping Cough is highly contagious. If a child at your daycare gets it because they aren’t vaccinated you are at risk.
  • Dental disease was a common killer prior to modern dentistry. It’s not easy to find exact statistics because dental disease often led to death in other ways. Diseases of the teeth quickly spread to the heart. With modern dentistry many lives are saved. Thank you, Pierre Fauchard.
  • My sister is cancer free thanks to Trastuzumab, thank you Axel Ullrich and H. Michael Shepard.

As I said at the beginning of the article I’m not completely against non-western medicine where it is shown to be effective. There is some evidence that Acupuncture, Chiropractic, and Massage Therapy can be effective. However, there are tremendous dangers to alternate medicine. Because it’s efficacy is largely unproven it leads to practitioners who are unregulated and prey on ill people desperate for a cure. It is particularly dangerous when used as a substitute, rather than a complement, to regular care.

I don’t really want to get into that debate. What I will say is that the odds are strong that you know someone who is alive and well because of modern, western medicine.

So thank you to all the researchers, assistants, technicians and the rest who are out there who are trying to find cures. Keep up this important work!

Comment, Like, Tweet, Stumble, Digg, or otherwise share if you want to say thank you as well!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Rock Chalk vs M – I – Z

Posted on by

Missouri - Kansas RivalryThe sports rivalry between the University of Kansas and the University of Missouri will take a big hit when the Tigers officially move to the Southeastern Conference on July 1, 1012. Prior to that the two school met annually on the various playing fields starting in 1891.

I’d like to examine the origins the rivalry and then talk about whether or not I hope that it will continue. So, my loyal followers, put on your time travel caps and get ready for a journey back to a time when the issue of slavery was the dominant question in the United States.

Starting around 1854 the territory of Kansas was preparing to enter the Union of States and the burning issue was if it would be a slave state or a free state. There was a tremendous amount at stake in this decision because the concept of popular sovereignty was sweeping through the country. The idea was that each state would determine its own status as slave owning or not rather than the federal government assigning a status. The slave states desperately wanted Kansas to come in as one of their own because as free states joined the union the institution of slavery became more likely to be outlawed nationally. The free states and Republican Party, formed largely to stamp out the spread of slavery, wanted the opposite.

As Kansas got closer to being a state people from both sides of the slavery issue began to move into the territory hoping to swing the vote one way or the other. Many of the pro-slavery group came from the slave state of Missouri and dubbed themselves Blue Lodges. On the other side a group calling themselves Jayhawkers, formed largely of abolitionists, began to gather to swing the vote against slavery.

From there things got ugly. In the referendum deciding the slavery issue less than half of all voters were actually from the Kansas Territory and slavery won out in a largely illegal vote. The fallout from this rigged vote was that the newly created legislature actually moved from Kansas to Missouri to enact their legislation. Anti-slavery forces formed their own government in Topeka and began to pass their own legislation. President Pierce called this group revolutionary and sided with the pro-slavery forces.

The weakness displayed by Pierce in this time led directly to the Civil War and he is rightly, in my opinion, considered one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

Violence ensued with John Brown leading the anti-slavery forces. The violence was not limited to the region as Senator Preston Smith Brooks of South Carolina bludgeoned Senator Charles Sumner while a colleague kept other senators at bay with a pistol. Immediately after this incident, Brown led his group against slavery forces hacking five men to death while raiding their home. Violence continued on both sides.

Eventually, after several fraudulent votes, Kansas entered the Union as a free state thanks to the Wyandotte Constitution.

Violence continued between both sides until the end of the Civil War. During the war atrocities occurred with Quantrill’s Raiders being one of the most galvanizing forces. The anti-slavery Jayhawkers and Redlegs were largely based in abolitionist Lawrence, Kansas and used it as a base to stage their raids on pro-slavery Missouri. Quantrill led an attack on Lawrence in 1862 in which his men burned the town and killed many men and boys.

The conclusion of the Civil War and the banning of slavery put an end to the question but bad blood still exists between the two states.

And thus ends our history lesson but now I want to talk about how important is sport in our way of life. Sports provides us with a peaceful outlet for our rivalries. When Kansas and Missouri started their athletic rivalry there were the sons of men who killed each other on the teams. They fought on the field of play and shook hands after the game. That’s an improvement if you ask me.

My hatred of the New England Patriots, the Chicago Cubs, and the Detroit Red Wings stems from sports rivalries with my hometown teams. Go Rams, Cards, and Blues! However; I have no interest in killing the fans of the other teams – misguided as their loyalty might be. 🙂

Sport is a good thing and I hope that the athletic directors of Kansas and Missouri can overcome their momentary anger and remember that Missouri leaving the Big 12 is not nearly as horrible as what happened prior to and during the Civil War. The fact that the two schools have become peaceful rivals gives me hope that all antagonistic forces can one day put down their weapons and take their fight to the field of play. Even the radical elements of Islam and the western world.

Isn’t a good game, win or lose, better than killing each other?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Privacy throughout History

Posted on by
Privacy

On the surface this post is about how privacy has changed throughout history with advancing technology but the subtext is our privacy and how the state’s right to protect us is going to be clash in an ever increasing fashion. How we manage that is important to the future of the United States.

How Privacy has Changed

Now, on to the topic at hand, how privacy has changed both legally and in our expectations over the years. One of the first opinions about privacy written in the U.S. was The Right to Privacy by Samuel Warren and future Supreme Court justice Louis Brandies. In this article they point out that privacy was extended over the years to include things like vibration and dust as the world changed.

Privacy certainly factors into zoning laws as we would not want a factory to move to the middle of a residential region. These things make perfect sense to us today but when there was no such thing as a factory they did not merit consideration.

Privacy Rights

The main thrust of the paper was the intrusions that photography and newspapers presented warranted a new interpretation of privacy laws. I’d suggest a full perusal of the article because it is beautifully argued and astonishingly pertinent to today’s world even if the technologies discussed are outdated. It is fairly lengthy and you might want to skip down to the six enumerated privacy rights points.

Basically, people have the right to their personal lives and other people cannot splash that across the media without permission. Public figures fall under a different set of rules. That being said, personally I find the invasion of privacy of celebrities and politicians to be disgusting. The courts have ruled it legal enough.

Modern Technology

Now, as to today’s technology and what it means for our privacy. The use of secure “land-line” phones is slowly going away and cellular phones broadcast over the open airwaves. This means anyone can technically listen in on your conversations if they have certain information and equipment. We increasingly use encrypted wireless devices . This does not prevent the possibility of someone is eavesdropping on those conversations.

Every email you send does not go directly to the recipient. It passes through numerous other computers on the way to that person. Anyone with access to said computers can read your email.

Most of our purchases are made with credit or debit cards which are tied directly to our person. This means that information about our shopping habits is readily available to sellers. Every page we browse on the internet is tracked and you can’t eliminate this by stopping tracking cookies on your computer. There is a record of your computer visiting a particular site at all times.

We will increasingly consume media through streaming venues which again is information available for capture.

What does it Mean

What does all this mean? It means that things we once considered private are now publicly available for consumption. My shopping habits, movie watching habits, reading habits, music listening habits, and other things are now public knowledge.

Most importantly what rights does this give the state and their law enforcement arms to access such information. There have been a bevy of cases testing the limits of this in recent years. Technology called Forward Looking Infrared allows police to see if we are using certain kinds lights in our house. The Supreme Court ruled this an invasion of our Fourth Amendment rights.

We will see a huge increase of drones patrolling our skies in the future as well as more cameras in many public places to watch for criminal activity. All of these things have both their good and bad sides. How they are used and the laws associated with their use will greatly effect our privacy in the coming years.

This is an incredibly important issue in the United States today because it pits our privacy and, to a large degree, freedom against the state’s duty to protect us from criminal mischief. That’s what I’m going to write about on Sunday. What right does that state have to invade our privacy in order to protect us? Stay tuned!

I’ve got a special article on tap for Saturday but I’ll let you know about that later on today!

As always, comment, tweet, stumble, digg, like, link, and otherwise share if you think others might be interested!

Tom Liberman

Privacy in the United States – Definition

Posted on by

Privacy
Privacy is a complex issue in the United States. The advent of new technology is changing not only the perceived definition of privacy but also its reality. In this series of blogs I’m going to take on this complex issue and examine how it relates to every citizen of this county and, more generally, to the idea of Libertarianism and free thinking.

As is my want, I’ll start out with the general definition. This is a difficult concept because there is the definition of privacy, the general expectation of privacy, and the actual fact of privacy law in the U.S. Surprisingly, these three things are fairly widely divergent.

First I want to examine simply the concept of privacy. The dictionary seems a good place to start. Sadly, I don’t have a subscription to the magnificent Oxford English Dictionary site but Merriam Webster comes to the rescue.

a. the quality or state of being apart from company or observation

b. freedom from unauthorized intrusion <one’s right to privacy>

I think we are largely talking about definition “b” in this case. Our right to privacy from unauthorized intrusion. The first definition concerns itself more with my individual right to hide in my room typing my blog, writing my latest book, and playing Skyrim.

Now, as to our perception of privacy. An interesting story recently demonstrated that, largely, our sense of what is private does not mesh with reality. I don’t want to get into the details of the story but basically it talks about how our shopping habits, tracked through our credit, debit, and reward cards gives retailers a great deal of information about us.

We think that is private for the simple reason that until the advent of massive database tracking it was impossible for someone to keep track of that much information. Those sorts of databases now exist and combined with identifying tools like reward cards and tracking cookies it is possible for people to not only keep that information but mine it for gain, both yours and theirs.

How does that help me? It helps me everyday when I’m on the computer. Advertisements that interest me show up in my browser, books that correspond to my reading habits show up every time I visit Barnes and Noble or Amazon to check on the rather anemic sales of my books. This sort of targeted advertising will only increase as the technology blooms. When I check in at the grocery story my phone will tell me items on sale that I’ve purchased in the past. When my shirts start to get to be a year or so old  I’ll get an automated message from Brooks Brothers that I need some new ones.

These are the sorts of things we once thought private but are quickly finding out are not. If, say, I purchase an inordinate amount of Bookers Bourbon in a month perhaps I might get a call from an alcoholic center. It’s difficult to say how far this information will go but its safe to say that where there is money to be made the technology will follow.

When you are talking on the cell phone or send an email there is no privacy. That is open line communication and fully non-private. Everything you do on the computer at your workplace, browse the internet, send instant messages to your loved ones, or play solitaire is managed by the Information Technology team at your office. None of it is private.

Every web page you visit is tracked although this is where we start to get into the legal definition of privacy. While certain information is available it is not necessarily admissible in a court of law.

So, as to the legal definition of privacy in the U.S. There are different laws for public and private figures and I’m mostly going to talk about personal privacy for now. Public figures have less privacy than non-public ones for a variety of reasons.

As far as most of us are concerned, privacy laws essentially protect us from someone finding out information about us to either publicly disclose or use for personal gain. Yellow Journalism and the advent of the easily available cameras spurred many new laws in the past and new technologies are changing the landscape almost every day.

To try and wrap up part one I’ll mention the idea of tort law in the U.S. in regards to privacy. There are basically four areas covered and I’d recommend a long perusal of the Wikipedia article for better information.

  1. Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one’s private quarters.
  2. Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable
  3. False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory
  4. Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person’s name or likeness to obtain some benefits.

Ok, that’s it for part 1. Tomorrow I’m going to try and take on the history of privacy in the U.S. and how technology has, and is, currently changing it.

As always, Like, Stumble, Tweet, Digg, and otherwise share this information if you think someone else might find it of interest. Comment are always welcome!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

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

Teaser – Anti-Trust Laws

Posted on by

Anti-trustAfter my Crony Capitalism post a little while ago several fellow Libertarians posted comments in support but mentioned that they didn’t think the government had the ability to create a level playing field through regulation. That this field was created by competition itself.

Tomorrow I’ll share one group of situations where I think federal oversight, in the way of broad regulations, is sometimes necessary in order to have a free market. Why I think unfettered capitalism doesn’t work without a modicum of government oversight.

I’ve got my bunker all prepared for a blast back from Libertarians!

Stay tuned and see you tomorrow!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

We the People

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Posted on by

Great SealIn 1912 an amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed that Senators be directly elected by the population of each state rather than be appointed by the legislatures of said states. It was ratified within a year by 31 of the 48 states and became law on May 31, 1913.

In my experience I find that most people are unaware of a time when Senators were not directly elected so I’m going to go back in time and try to explain the original concept of the Founding Fathers.

Put on your time travel hats and come with me on a journey … journey … journey.

During the Philadelphia or Constitutional Convention the founding fathers gathered to write the new constitution. There were a number of factions each with their own plan but one of the main issues rested on how officials to the new government would get their jobs. I’m going to generalize here pretty broadly and I’d suggest a perusal of the article for better details.

Anti-federalist largely wanted there to be one representative per state so as each state would have equal power and the federal government would be weaker. Federalists largely wanted direct, proportional elections so that larger states had more power and the federal government would be stronger. They ended up with the Connecticut Compromise. Direct, proportional election of the House of Representatives, two Senators per state appointed by state legislatures, and an executive elected by the Electoral College.

The effect of this was as follows: The house of representatives with their two year terms were beholden to the people of their states, more subject to the whims of the moment, and the larger states had significantly more say. The senators with their six year term were beholden directly to the state representatives and not the people of the state which gave state legislatures, big and small, an equal say in federal policies.

The reasons suggested for the new amendment were that some senators engaged in direct and indirect bribery of state legislatures to get their job. Also, when a state failed to elect a senator because of gridlock the senate went unfilled.

These reasons gained so much momentum that 31 state legislatures proposed making the change. This galvanized the federal government into proposing the amendment before the states themselves engaged in a “runaway convention” and took matters into their own hands.

In my opinion the federal government was correct to propose the change at the time because it was the will of the state legislatures and their ratification of the amendment demonstrates this fact. However, we’ve had a hundred years to see its effect and it is time we reexamine an amendment as has been done before.

Its effect has been profound and I’ll site one dramatic example. In 1994 the Republican Party took control of the Senate with 52 of the 100 seats. Had the 17th amendment not been passed Democrats would have had a filibuster-proof super-majority of 70 seats.

Now, as to the less dramatic effects of the new amendment. Essentially the Senators are no longer beholden to the state legislature and that removes power from the states. Some argue that it also helped pave the way for special interest groups and lobbyist to influence the now unburdened Senators. Essentially lobbyist used to focus on their own state legislatures but now gather in ever growing flocks in Washington D.C. Before lobbyist had to spread their attention to multiple people in each state legislature but now only have to influence two senators.

Now, as to my opinion, finally.

I think the weakening of state power has only increased the corruption that was largely the motivator in making the change in the first place. Certainly there was corruption in the Senate appointment process but that corruption has simply gone up the ladder to the federal level while at the same time depriving states of their primary weapon in this great Union. As individual states lose their power, and the federal government gains it, the concentration of power draws in more and more corruption. As the federal government becomes directly responsible to the people and not the state legislatures we slide towards democracy rather than representative republic. I detail why this is a bad thing here.

I’m not suggesting that repealing the 17th amendment will fix the woes of the country but I think it’s one step necessary in the process.

Like, Tweet, Comment, Stumble, Digg, and otherwise spread the word if you think this post might be of interest to your friends and family. As always, feel free to disagree in the comments!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Nuclear Power – Final Conclusion

Posted on by

Nuclear PowerI spent time two days ago talking about how Nuclear Power works and yesterday I spoke about the pros and cons of it. Today I’ll weigh the various arguments and come to a conclusion. Hopefully you will tell me where I made all my mistakes with comments!

The pros of nuclear power are strong and obtaining energy independence from foreign powers, some of them inimically opposed to freedom and our way of life, is a powerful motivator for me to endorse it.

There is a big part of me that wants to support nuclear power simply because of its natural origin. There is something romantic about turning to the power of the stars to make our own energy grid work. The stars are the source of all the heavy metals in the world and in no small sense we are made of star stuff.

I also support alternate energy like wind, solar, and geothermal. I think the economic potential for those sources of energy are tremendous although there is some upfront cost. The world’s demand for energy will only increase in the coming years and the nations with the technology to provide renewable and nuclear energy technology will see a steady source of revenue.

If a nation doesn’t have a source of revenue then their place in the modern, connected world, is bound to diminish. In a future post I’d like to spend some time talking about how computer technology did far more to help the economy of the United States and the western world than did any politician. Thank you Claude Shannon, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and a host of others.

But, back to the problem at hand, nuclear power. Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue and the more material available to make a nuclear bomb the more chance it will fall into the hands of someone who wants to use it to murder people. That being said, I’m not convinced that if the United States refuses to build nuclear reactors this threat diminishes. Other nations will continue to gain the ability to make such material and the number of nuclear reactors in the United States doesn’t substantially increase that risk in my opinion.

As far as accidents are concerned it certainly weighs on my decision by I do think Generation III plants are significantly safer than current models and Thorium reactors will be about as safe as any other form of energy. The damage to the world from coal and oil currently far outweighs that of nuclear.

Still, there is the pesky problem of waste. To me that is the biggest negative to the idea of building new plants. The more plants we have the more waste is generated.  We currently store all this waste on site, at the plant, and the security is not particularly great. The risk of proliferation is moderately high and would become more dangerous for every plant we built.

If we become a nation dependent on nuclear energy sources we are going to have to deal with the waste problem. This is a big enough issue for me to put on the brakes. At the moment I think would have to oppose building of new plants.

However, if the government suddenly showed the political will to not only come up with a plan to transport and create long term storage for nuclear waste but also to actually put that plan into operation, then I would change my mind. I have a hard time envisioning the current government of the U.S. coming together to do that but perhaps with some prodding from an educated electorate anything might happen.

Tell me what you think in the comments, Like, Tweet, Stumble, +1, or otherwise interact!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

P.S. I had a provocative comment from Erick at Patriot Fire about my post on Crony Capitalism. Thanks Erick and keep them coming! Feel free to disagree with me any time as long as you can explain your position! 🙂

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

Crony Capitalism

Crony Capitalism

Posted on by

Crony CapitalismThe topic for today is something called crony capitalism which is destroying free enterprise. The basic idea of capitalism is that free markets provide the best economic model for the growth of a nation. There are a lot variables within capitalism but at its most fundamental it is an idea that includes private ownership and production, wages for workers, free competition, and accumulation of capital for profit.

The ideas of capitalism are probably good fodder for another blog. What I want to discuss today is how crony capitalism is destroying the free market and with it our libertarian ideals. While crony capitalism has the word capitalism within it, it is actually a form of socialism, or government control of industry. Socialism is another badly misunderstood word and I should take that up in another blog. The ideas keep rolling in!

What is largely meant by this term is not capitalism at all. The United States government has become overly involved in the success of business. It is through government involvement that a particular product or service now succeeds. This has spawned an entire industry of lobbyist who spend their days trying to convince government officials to pass laws, regulations, and make actual purchases that favor their employer.

Most people see this problem with the U.S. military and decisions on which system to purchase are often decided by factors other than the actual effectiveness of the product.

However, this crony capitalism extends much deeper into society than most people realize. Go ask your employer if you have any government contracts. Ask them how much of the company money is spent on trying to get government agents to give them advantages.

There are a lot of reasons to fear this subversion of true capitalism but I think the main idea goes back to what Ayn Rand suggests in her writing. That the individual achiever must be allowed to succeed or society as a whole will eventually fail. The problem with crony capitalism, from my perspective at least, is that companies and individuals achieve not on the merit of their work but upon their ability to bribe government officials into altering the playing field so that they succeed. This eventually means companies that are good at bribery and backstabbing succeed while companies that just want to make a good product, employ hard workers, pay them a good salary, and make some money are defeated.

Again, we arrive at the point where I’ve complained all day long and not offered any solutions to the problem.

This is an extremely difficult problem but at its heart it comes down to fairness of government regulation. I’m a relatively moderate Libertarian in that I believe government regulation is necessary to prevent anti-trust situations but these regulations need to be broad and aimed at creating a fair playing field for all businesses.

It’s not easy to come up with legislation of this sort but I’ll take on food labeling as an example of my ideas. There are currently a bevy of regulations on how to display the nutritional contents of food. The problem is in defining what percent of a particular nutrient applies to a wide variety of people and what defines a serving size. It seems clear to me that nothing is going to be applicable to someone of my size, 5 foot 7 inches (1.7 meters) 165 lbs (74.8 kg) of twisted steel, and say, the left tackle of the St. Louis Rams. Go Rams!

So, why not simply put in the actual nutritional value of the entire package on the label. I can figure out how much of the package I eat, I can easily find out the daily allowances for someone of my size. It’s not the governments job to lead me to  the water and hold my hand while I drink.

Another example might be the animal husbandry industry. Simply make the producer put a webcam on their livestock and slaughtering pens and make it publicly available. If I know how the animal is treated then it is up to me if I want to save a little money or purchase the more expensive, but better treated, animal.

I’m a believer that government needs to regulate but the purpose is to create a fair playing field so that the best business can succeed, which is a winning formula for you and me.

Tom Liberman

The United States is becoming a Democracy

Posted on by

Focus GroupOne of the areas I find people have a great deal of confusion about is the idea that the United States is a democracy. The U.S. is a representative republic which I spoke about in a previous post. The issue I want to take on today is the idea that we are slowly becoming a democracy.

When the Founding Fathers established the political system of the United States they broke authority into three branches of government. The Federal Convention is where the Founding Fathers gathered to draft the wording for the new constitution. There was much consternation about how the people in these branches would get their jobs. There was also a great deal of concern about how much power should rest in the hands of the federal government but I’ll save that conversation for a future blog. For now I want to talk about how our representatives get their jobs and their duty therein.

The Federal Convention ended with a system, after much debate, where the lower house, The House of Representatives was elected directly by a vote of the people, an upper house, the Senate, appointed by state officials, the executive, the President, who was elected through a mechanism called the Electoral College, and a Judicial, Judges, who were appointed by the executive.

The Senate and House of Representatives make laws, the Executive signs them, and the Judicial determines their meaning in individual cases. The important factor here is that it is Congress (the collective term for the Senate and House of Representatives) makes the laws. The laws are not voted on by the people. The founding fathers did this for a specific reason that I will talk about tomorrow.

Most state governments operate the same way.

Things have changed to a large degree. The main culprit in this change, I think, is the proliferation and immediacy of polling and voter outrage. By this I mean that the people can almost instantly respond to any proposed legislation before it becomes law and organize opposition. Also, with sophisticated polling, the politicians are aware of the will of the people before they cast their vote. This has the effect of pushing politicians in the direction of the majority of the population. Not just in their legislative duties but in their campaign promises and party platforms.

Focus Group

We’ve seen massive vote swings based on popular opinion quite recently with the SOPA act but that is only the tip of the iceberg. Politicians regularly hold focus groups in order to weigh the popularity of a particular plan. They fear getting removed from office if they make decisions that are unpopular with their constituency.

This is not the system envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The original plan was that the representatives made the laws and the people redressed that situation once every two, four, or six years with elections. Even then only the House of Representatives faced direct election by the people. The Senators were appointed and the President elected via the Electoral College. So, the drift towards democracy is something that was not originally planned.

Now, there are quite a few people out there who consider this movement towards democracy a good thing and they have some interesting points. I’ll talk about what this change means for the future of the United States tomorrow.

Stay tuned!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

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