Category Archives: Politics

The Irony of Congress Being Upset by Tax Debt

Posted on by

tax-debtThe United States is owed about $138 billion of tax debt by millions of taxpayers who never sent in their checks. That’s a lot of money and Congress has tried to collect it on numerous occasion. It strikes me as ironic that Congress is so angry about people who can’t pay their bills. You see, the reason Congress desperately needs the money is because they themselves can’t pay their bills.

Congress recently passed some legislation that allows third party companies to collect that debt with a twenty-five percent collector’s fee. This is the third-time Congress has tried to recover this tax debt and each time it ends up being a money losing endeavor.

These attempts at hiring private collectors have completely failed because the biggest share of the money owed is attributed to people living on or near the poverty line, they just can’t afford to pay.

It’s true the uncollected tax debt Congress is trying to recoup amounts to only a tiny percent of what is owed. It’s true that most of the debt is basically uncollectable. It’s true every dollar collected is money taken out of the economy which would otherwise be spent on food, rent, or other items. A lot of people are writing about these things.

That being said, I’d just like to wax poetic about the irony of it all. Congress has now driven the United States into a nearly $20 trillion hole.

Why would anyone willingly pay money into this black pit of debt? Congress has shown complete irresponsibility in spending your tax dollars and now is irate that you are getting a little bit tired of paying? They want to send debt collectors after you?

How about someone sends some debt collectors after Congress? Would you be all that upset if you found out angry and forceful debt collection agencies were calling member of Congress and their families every day? If they declared in no uncertain terms they needed to see payment on that debt? Hey, bub. It’s been a while since your last payment, think you can go without that sporty new F35?

I understand that the United States is paying interest on their debt and the two situations are not analogous. Still, I can’t be the only one who finds this situation borders on the ridiculous. It’s like some sort of situation comedy. A criminal accosts you and steals all your money, spends it foolishly, and then is angry because when she or he tries to rob you again, you’re broke.

We’re not only dealing with people who just can’t afford to pay their taxes, we’ve created an environment where people consider paying their taxes simply contributing to an out of control spendthrift. Why should I give money to you when you’re just going to spend it unwisely?
If the government spent our money with some care, it seems to me that we might have less uncollected tax money. I’d certainly be happier about paying my taxes if I thought it was being wisely used and I don’t think I’m alone.

Ah, the irony of it all.

Tom Liberman

Turn North Korea into a Parking Lot?

Posted on by

north_koreaA rather common refrain I hear from people is the idea of using nuclear weapons to completely destroy a particular enemy of the United States. I probably first heard this in regards to Iran not long after the revolution in that nation, today I mostly hear it in reference to North Korea.

The idea is that North Korea doesn’t have the ability to damage the United States in return and they do not have resources we’re much interested in acquiring. If we simply use nuclear weapons on them we don’t risk any soldiers’ lives and solve the problem.

But what does saying something like “Turn North Korea into a parking lot” indicate about the person saying it? I think it’s fairly important to examine this idea. I’m of the opinion that most people are saying it rather flippantly, they are not really thinking through the idea nor do they actually want the plan carried out. Still, it’s important to consider your words. When you say something, other people hear you. People who respect and trust you often repeat your sentiment. It’s one of the ways fake news gets legitimized. When someone you respect gives an opinion, you are prone to believe it and repeat it.

So, let’s examine the consequences of turning North Korea into a parking lot by using nuclear weapons.

North Korea is a nation of nearly twenty-five million people. It has a land mass of forty-six thousand square miles. It is adjacent to U.S. ally South Korea and important trade partner China. It is less than a thousand miles from central Japan.

In order to completely destroy North Korea, the U.S. would likely have to drop hundreds of nuclear bombs. We could destroy the major population centers and military institutions with fewer but it would require a considerable effort in either case. We could attempt to bomb when prevailing winds would minimize the drift of the nuclear cloud. Most likely we’d kill, maim, and radiate hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in Japan, China, and South Korea in collateral damage.

In addition, North Korea has considerable artillery assets which are well within range of Seoul. They would almost certainly bombard much of South Korea before the full effects of the nuclear attack could be achieved.

Obviously, we’d be killing the vast majority of the population in North Korea; man, woman, child, and unborn infant. For me that’s an issue of simple ethics, morality.

In addition, we would be establishing a pattern of behavior where we are willing to completely destroy an enemy. This has a two-fold effect. Proponents argue it would frighten our enemies, who would immediately come into line with our desires. There might be some truth to that but the reality is our enemies would simply plan to completely destroy us before we could do the same to them.

I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t want to flatten North Korea. I’m just suggesting you consider the consequences of such actions before you advocate them. What doing so would infer about your own humanity and decency, the effects your spoken and written sentiments have on those around you.

Tom Liberman

ATF Agents Breaking the Law to Make Money

Posted on by

loose-cigaretteThere’s a great story in the New York Times that is a follow up to one they wrote back in February about how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) used a secret account to pay for all sorts of things.

The articles expose any number of egregious problems in ATF but I’d like to focus on how the account in question was supplied with millions of dollars.

Basically, agents authorized their informants to purchase untaxed cigarettes and sell them at a profit. They then used the revenue generated to fill the account.

It’s really important what’s happening here. The ATF is doing the very thing they are arresting other people for doing. They are doing exactly the thing that resulted in the death of Eric Garner.

The government is breaking the law ostensibly to stop people from breaking the exact same law. The law itself is stupid. If New York decides to put a ridiculously high tax on cigarettes they make it possible for entrepreneurs to bring in product from other states and sell it at a profit. In order to prevent such activity, they create more laws. I’ve written about this stupidity before so I won’t wax poetic here today.

What we’re seeing here is simple market dynamics. The state of New York, and others, created some taxes making certain behavior profitable. The state and federal government then attempted to stop people from doing the profitable thing. Eventually they realized how profitable was the system and began to do the same thing.

That’s natural. That’s capitalism in action. This chain of events is something that needs to be considered every time a legislative body passes a law or institutes a tax.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens all the time. Legislators pass new taxes to raise revenue for whatever reason, they pass laws to prevent particular behaviors. This often create criminals. In this case, the very agency tasked with stopping such people.

Think about it. If the tax incentives criminals, what hope does it have of having long term success? Yes, it will raise revenue, that’s true. But how much money is spent enforcing the laws engendered by the tax?

I think it can argued that all we’re really doing is taking money from cigarette smokers to give law enforcement agents work. Work created by the original misguided taxes.

It all could be avoided if we didn’t tax cigarettes so highly. All because we don’t like smokers and don’t mind taking their money.

For the record, I don’t smoke.

Tom Liberman

FCC Decides Against Cell Phone Use Because They’re Noisy

Posted on by

cellphone-airlineYep. Not because they pose a threat to communications between pilots and air traffic controllers. Because FCC Chairman Ajit Pai thinks people want some peace and quiet in flight. Pai believes the government has the right to prevent you from using a cell phone because it might disturb someone else.

This is government that Libertarians like myself not only hate, but fear.

If there was a technical reason using your cell phone on a flight was dangerous, I’d fully support the airlines preventing you from doing so. The reason Pai doesn’t mention this as an excuse is because there is little evidence doing so is dangerous.

In a survey, it was found the majority of people don’t really want the person next to them on the plane gabbing away on her or his cell phone. And therefore, the FCC seems to be of the opinion that it should be made illegal. That because people don’t like it, it should be against the law.

I’m certainly not opposed to each airline creating rules about cell phones. If one airline wants to restrict their use during flight then that’s their business. Consumers might flock to that airline for the silence. Other consumers might patronize airlines that allow cell phone use because of the convenience. That’s a free market. That’s the way it should be.

This is an important distinction. When the government is allowed to make things illegal because other people don’t like them we’re treading in dangerous waters. Let’s face facts. We’re not merely treading in such waters. We’re up to our necks with our heads tilted back trying to breathe.

The United States is certainly not a totalitarian regime. We have many freedoms in this country that are not available in places like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China. I’m grateful for those freedoms but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight against even minor grievances like this one.

The government has no good reason to restrict the use of cell phones on planes. We should not be making laws based on what the majority of people may or may not find annoying. Remember that someone else might very well find something you do to be irritating. When you support government restricting someone else, you inevitably open the door to rules prohibiting you from doing something you would enjoy. Resist such temptations.

Tom Liberman

 

Privacy in Browsing History Government v Capitalism

Posted on by

internet-browsing-privacyPeople are up in arms because Congress granted Internet Service Providers the ability to sell the browsing history of users. Well, that’s not exactly what happened. In 2016 the Federal Communication Commission began enforcing a rule preventing ISPs from selling such information. Congress just repealed that rule.

The major ISPs have now come out with a statement saying they will never do so.

Here we have in brilliant technicolor the problem with government regulations. Anything the government can do, they can undo with the swipe of pen. Any law they pass to support one thing, can oppose that same thing when an ideologically different party takes power. When we give government the power to restrict an ISP from selling our browsing history we implicitly give them the power to allow it.

Why, you might ask, have the major ISPs taken the unusual step of vowing never to do so? Because of capitalism. If their customers find out they are selling browsing history they might well find themselves short of customers. Oh, but wait, nobody has much of a choice in ISPs because local government puts up enormous and expensive barriers to companies that want to bring you internet service.

Cable companies pay huge amounts in bribes, I mean fees, in order to service a community. Now things are changing. Wireless Internet Access companies are available in many places but the system is still horribly monopolistic.

Imagine if local governments weren’t involved at all and any capitalist could start up an ISP to compete for your dollars. How long do you think the ones that sell your browsing history would last in a truly competitive market?

The only reason the big ISPs are vowing not to sell your information is because of competition, not government regulations.

Competition brings enormous benefits to consumers in a way government regulation never can. Government regulations are often the reason companies can engage in anti-consumer activity, they stifle competition. Without competition there is nowhere else to go. With competition a company that angers its customers just won’t survive.

That’s capitalism.

The more the government does to protect us, the worse off we are.

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

Lessons from the Demise of the Motion Picture Production Code

Posted on by

hollywood-production-codeThanks to Bing Search I learned today the Motion Picture Production Code, more commonly known as the Hays Code, was first put into effect eight-seven years ago. It stayed in place for about thirty years before it eventually was replaced with the rating system movies use to this day.

The lesson I’d like to talk about today is why the code failed. Before we get to that, let’s find out what it was and why it was created.

Basically the code restricted all sorts of things from being depicted in movies. The list of banned items included any non-reverent mention of god, trafficking of illegal drugs, and ridicule of the clergy. The list of items to be treated with great caution included cruelty to animals or children, adults in bed together, and the use of firearms.

Movies that did not meet the standards laid out by the Code were not given a Certificate of Approval and could not be released.

The reason the code was put into place was a general feeling of moral outrage that movies were bringing unsavory ideas to audiences. The individual states had begun to put in place their own bans after the Supreme Court ruled movies were not subject to Freedom of Speech protection.

Enough prelude. I’m not going to waste time talking about why the Code was against Libertarian philosophy although I could. I want to focus, quickly and efficiently, on why it failed. That’s what is most important.

Starting almost immediately after the Code was emplaced movie makers started to create films outside the main studios that bypassed the rules. They released them independently.

It wasn’t until competition became an issue that the major studios began to make movies and release them regardless of whether they had a Certificate of Approval. In addition, Foreign films were not subject to the restrictions, television was not subject to the restrictions. The studios tried to keep foreign films from being shown but the Supreme Court ruled this illegal.

Competition. People wanted to see movies that included this sort of content. Not that they went to the movie simply because it had such content but it’s clear such movies had a much larger field upon which to play. They could tell stories in ways movies using the Code could not.

Lots of people wanted to see movies made without the restrictions of the Code.

And thus the studios began to make them and simply ignore the Code. Some Like it Hot was the film that basically ended the code. It was released without the Certificate of Approval and was a huge success.

The lesson to be learned here is when government attempts to enforce moral codes on people it is doomed to failure, simply because people want what they want. You cannot pretend because something is supposedly bad or dangerous, passing a law will fix the problem. It won’t. It will create a host of other issues while completing failing to solve the issue.

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

The Fools Rush to Limit Opioid Prescription Length

Posted on by

john-kasich-opioid-lawsGovernor John Kasich and the legislature of Ohio just joined Governor Chris Christie and New Jersey in limiting the length of prescriptions for Opioids to one week. Of the new law Kasich said, We all need to stick our noses into somebody else’s business.

Before I go on a Libertarian induced rage rant let’s examine why this is happening.

Pharmaceutical companies have been pumping out enormous amounts of opioids like fentanyl and doctors have been prescribing them in equally large numbers. While the authorities have been quite aggressive about jailing opioid dealers who aren’t pharmaceutical companies and doctors they have largely allowed these two groups to garner huge profits. Meanwhile the people being prescribed the drugs eventually run out of their prescriptions and resort to illegal sources for their addictions.

The thought process behind the limit of seven days rather than ninety days is that there will be fewer unused pills to sell to the black market. And because there will be fewer of these legally prescribed pills somehow this will magically reduce the market for them. Somehow no one will come along to fill the void in true supply-side economic fashion.

What will the new law actually accomplish? It will make it horribly inconvenient for people in terrible pain to get the pills they need to make it through the day. This law punishes the critically ill. It must be noted cancer patients and people in hospice are exempt but that leaves a lot of other people in a difficult situation. People who are critically ill don’t really want to go to the doctor once a week for their prescription and then have to pick it up. They are, you see, critically ill and in horrible pain.

So we’re making life a living nightmare for a group of people to reduce opioids on the street. But will there be fewer illegal drugs for people to purchase? Of course not. Where there is a demand there will be supply. Price goes up. People in terrible pain and addicts will have to pay more. And how do they get this money? Generally by stealing from other people.

Addiction is a terrible thing and I’m all for decriminalization and treatment. This law doesn’t help anyone and it hurts lots of people.

Well, that’s not true. It helps politicians like Kasich pretend they are doing something about a terrible problem. Next time you vote, remember they aren’t helping anyone but themselves. That’s the only way to bring about change.

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

Eminent Domain and the Border Wall

Posted on by

eminent_domainThe Border Wall. It’s a fairly big news story. President Trump would like to spend some billions of dollars to build a wall between Mexico and the United States in order to prevent illegal aliens from crossing over. Much of this land is not owned by the government and they would therefore have to purchase it.

It’s quite likely that many of the people who own this land aren’t going to want to sell. The solution is something called Eminent Domain.

In essence, The Federal Government and State Government has the right to simply purchase the land for a fair market price if they deem such Taking arises from a situation of extreme necessity or of public utility. I would think the government is arguing that building the wall is of public utility in this case and therefore they can simply take the land even from unwilling owners.

This, naturally, strikes at the core of my Libertarian ideology. I think cases of Eminent Domain must be severely limited and this particular extension when the argument for public utility is rather debatable does not qualify. There are any number of arguments both for and against a border wall but I don’t want to get into that debate. I simply point out the matter is far from clear, and therefore it cannot be argued with certainty that the border wall is for public utility.

If the government would like to make an offer the land owners can’t refuse, more power to them. Otherwise I think this one has to end up in the courts and that will take years and millions of taxpayer dollars.

Now a quick story about a situation here in my hometown of St. Louis, Missouri. We have a north and south running highway called 170. It was designed to connect two basically east and west highways, 55 and 70. People refused to sell the land required. The government eventually built part of the highway, but the southern section remains unfinished to this day. This is a moderately significant issue when trying to get from the northern half of the city to the southern. It affects me in a negative way on a regular basis.

And yet this is a good thing. It is the course the people of the city took and the state shouldn’t have the ability to take land if the seller is unwilling, barring the rules laid out by Eminent Domain.

Another quick story about the government using Eminent Domain. Keystone Pipeline. The only way to build it was by acquiring land through the use of Eminent Domain, in Texas, Nebraska, South Dakota.

I’m not completely opposed to Eminent Domain because there are situations where all the land for something of clear public utility is purchased except one parcel, and the person is holding out for some exorbitant amount. Even then I’m somewhat skeptical. Eminent Domain is often used by the state to steal land, generally for profit. We should all be wary.

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

Jeff Sessions Believes Violence Follows Marijuana Sales Because of Unpaid Debt

Posted on by

war-on-drugs“You can’t sue somebody for a drug debt. The only way to get your money is through strong-arm tactics, and violence tends to follow that.”

That is the quote from the Attorney General of the United States in regards to marijuana legalization. What else is there to say? How stupid is he? Or does he just think those who support him are stupid?

Is it possible he doesn’t realize that in states where marijuana is legal that you can sue for debt and thus violence is completely unnecessary? Is it possible that he doesn’t realize the vast majority of violence surrounding the drug trade is caused by interdiction?

Police officers die. Innocents die. Drug dealers die. Drug users die. The violence is almost completely centered on the enforcement of drug laws. If drugs were legal there would not be anywhere near the violence. Do we see violence around prescription drug debt? No? Gosh, a shocker there.

Of course if drugs were legal the police forces of the United States wouldn’t have nearly as much to do. Nearly as much to spend on neat equipment. Not nearly as many citizens to bully and attack. Of course, on the plus side, they would also be much safer. They could focus their energies on non-drug crime and helping the citizens of their communities rather than financing their entire department off the misery of said citizens.

If drugs were legal the prisons would lose most of their inhabitants. That’s a good thing? Right? Well good for everyone except the prison system which enriches itself on putting citizens in jail.

What would the DEA do if drugs were legal? Well, just about nothing. How much money would that save? But we don’t want that, we want to employ people.

I’ve ranted enough. I can’t take any more.

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

I’ll Use Our Second Amendment Rights to Defend our First Amendment Rights

Posted on by

Constitution of United StatesCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I want to be as clear as possible about the First Amendment.

The freedom of media to report as they will without fear of retribution from the government is vital to the survival of this great nation and of This Great Experiment. The media must be allowed to tell the story; the true story, the false story, the agenda driven story twisted with nuance, or the apolitical story. It is necessary. It is my freedom.

If you are under the impression those telling stories you don’t like must be arrested, repressed, intimidated, fined, sued, or otherwise cowed from doing their job; know that I will defend them. If necessary I’ll use another right guaranteed to me to do so.

I will accept the consequences of those action.

Just so you know where I stand if you want to discuss Freedom of the Press in my presence.

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

Removing Competition the Immigration Way

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breezewood PA Clashes with the Objectivist Idea of Self-Interest

Posted on by

breezewood-paSelf-Interest. That’s the mantra of this Objectivist. When I act in my own self-interest I help those around me. Now I read about the interstate near a place called Breezewood, Pennsylvania and it brings the philosophy into question.

Let me explain. Breezewood is a community that exists largely because there is a connecting road missing. Highway I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike almost intersect at Breezewood … but they don’t. The reason they don’t is because travelers who want to get from one interstate to the other can’t do so without exiting one, driving through town amidst an almost constant traffic jam, and arriving at the other.

Without this little traffic jam the city would probably not exist. People would simply transit from one highway to the other without stopping. Some would stop for gas or a bite to eat certainly, but most would go merrily on their way. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Government regulation prevented tax dollars from building the interchange because one road was a toll road and the other was not. That regulation was removed eventually but the loop through Breezewood was already built by then. The Congressman from that district prevented any construction for years.

It’s clear millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of driving could easily be eliminated and yet it doesn’t get done because the people who live there don’t want it done. It’s in their interest not to have the interchange.

Where does that leave this objectivist? The people of Breezeway are doing exactly what my philosophy says they should do. Act in their own self-interest. In doing so they are inconveniencing many, many more people. They are wasting time and money. They are causing unnecessary pollution. What they are doing clearly helps those immediately around them but hurts the vast majority of people who travel that part of the country.

I’m all for the people of Breezewood doing what they think is in their best interest but where are the politicians from Pennsylvania and the United States? It’s in their interest to build that interchange and save a lot of people a lot of hassle. Yes, jobs will be lost in Breezewood. People will suffer. That’s the nature of the world.

The problem here isn’t objective self-interest, it’s the lack thereof. Far more people suffer because the people of Breezewood are acting in their interest. The solution. The people of Pennsylvania and the surrounding states need to elect officials who will solve the problem. They are the one’s not acting in their own self-interest.

It’s not always easy to be self-interested. The people of Breezewood live together, vote together, have a common issue. Those who need the interchange do not. It is more difficult for them to act in unison. I admit it.

We live in an age where people can share information and causes at the click of a button. With the right leader and a strong voice that interchange would be built. I still believe in self-interested objectivism but it’s not always easy.

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

Isolation and Assumption or Hamilton v. Trump

Posted on by

alexander-hamiltonShortly after the United States became an independent nation a fellow named Alexander Hamilton was put in charge of the treasury. The debt accrued from the Revolutionary War was a large issue and Hamilton wrote something called The First Report on the Public Credit that promoted the plan of Assumption.

Yipee, Tom, you might say. What does that have to do with President Trump and the modern world?

The idea is rather complex and sort of anti-common sense. Hamilton believed that if the Federal Government assumed all the debt from the various states, Assumption, those states would link their financial well-being to that of the central government. That is, if the union failed, the debt would fall back on the states. If the states had a financial stake in the union they would do their best to promote it and serve it.

This is a powerful idea against isolationism. If we are financially tied to other nations, they have a vested interest in seeing that we succeed, for then they succeed.

President Trump seems to be pursuing an America First agenda. The proposed tariffs would make it more expensive for other countries to do business in the United States. At that point they are given a choice. Pay the price or go elsewhere. Certainly some will pay the price in order to stay here but some will leave. As more and more decide it’s not worth the effort of staying they become independent of the United States. They have no reason to want us to succeed.

If we stop funding the United Nations it will suffer, most certainly. But the remaining member nations will soon realize they can do without that money. It won’t be as lavish. There won’t be as much waste. It won’t be as powerful. But we also will have little say in its operations. When we disengage we lose influence.

When we tell a nation they can’t do business with us without paying a price then eventually they stop doing business with us. We pay a price for influence. It’s money.

I’m not telling you that America First is a bad policy. I’m just telling you it will diminish our influence in the world. Other nations will learn they can do just fine without us.

If China decides they want to become world’s financial capital, something that could very well happen, it will mean an extraordinary shift in the balance of power in the world.

By allowing yourself to be tied to other people, other states, other nations; you make them work for your success. Their success is bound to yours and vice versa.

I just want to be very clear here. While I’m all for economic engagement with other nations I’m not for forcing regime change on those that don’t fall in line. I think we can do far more good in this world by linking people to each other financially than any soldier or covert operative working on regime change could ever accomplish.

I speak of nations and states in this article but ultimately I’m talking about individuals. When a person I play chess with in Iran wants to continue playing chess online with me, he or she doesn’t want me to die. Because it’s in his or her interest to continue the enjoyable chess games.

So it is with nations, states, and most importantly; individuals.

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

Mexican Wall and Remittance Seizures

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mexico, USA, Cars, and the Complexity of the Protectionist

Posted on by

protectionismThe recent election in the United States brought an avowed Protectionist to power and this raises interesting and complex economic questions. As a Libertarian I’m opposed to such policies.

I will not pretend that economics is a simple or easy to understand discipline. Nor do I even hope to convince those who agree with a protectionist agenda. I only hope to show you the situation is more difficult to understand than you might think.

At issue is the manufacturing of cars in Mexico. In the last twenty years building small cars in the United States has become an unprofitable business. When NAFTA was passed protectionism in North America was largely abolished. If you produced your goods in Mexico, Canada, or the United States then other countries are forbidden protectionist policies like tariffs, taxes, or other means. Free trade. If you can produce something more cheaply than the people in a neighboring country then you were allowed unfettered access to that market.

This means economic hardship for some and prosperity for others. If making a car in the United States cost X and making the same car in Mexico cost Y then manufacturers have a decision to make. In the last twenty years that decision was largely to move facilities to Mexico for production of small cars. The vagaries of economics made manufacturing them in the United States less or not at all profitable. This meant the loss of certain jobs. And that’s what Protectionists talk about the most. Yes, there is a loss of jobs.

However, let’s examine the likely outcome if the United States propped up the manufacturing of small cars through tariffs and other protectionist ideas. Japan and other car making nations would have gone to Mexico, as they have done and continue to do. They would then have been able to offer cars at a significantly better price than the U.S. companies could match. The only way to save those jobs would be for the U.S. to provide increasingly aggressive tariffs or to cut wages dramatically. Thus people in this country would be paying far more for cars or earning less, all to support jobs. That’s reality. That’s the inevitable outcome of protectionism.

Protectionists paint jobs going to Mexico and businesses moving plants to Mexico as a terrible thing. As stealing jobs from U.S. citizens. Movement of manufacturing to where it is best performed certainly saves consumers money but in the long run saves jobs as well. The jobs supposedly saved through protectionism come at a terrible cost and only delay the inevitable.

Imagine Protectionism comes to rule the day in the United States. Manufacturing comes back to the United States. What will be the result?

You will pay more for the same car until propping up the difference in price becomes unsustainable and the plant goes out of business anyway. The United States will produce goods at a higher price than everyone else in the world, meaning only we will purchase such products. Our global competitors will slowly take all our markets and in the meantime we’ll be paying more for everything. Businesses will eventually go bankrupt in increasing numbers and job losses and unemployment will rise as an inevitable result.

All to artificially preserve unsustainable jobs.

Protectionists wail about how manufacturing is going to other countries but the reality is the number one employer in the United States, besides the government, is Wal-Mart. They employ nearly six times more than the runner-up, McDonald’s. The main reason? Manufacturing performed in China. When Ford and Chrysler move plants to Mexico it actually creates wealth in this country. It creates jobs. Just different ones.

Protectionism has an allure. Be aware of the long-term dangers it presents.

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

Pharmaceutical Companies and Doctors make Millions for doing what would put you in Jail

Posted on by

war-on-drugsIf you fear that I’ll grow tired of railing against the failed and incredibly destructive War on Drugs then you can rest easy. The War on Drugs has been a total disaster for the vast majority of people in the world and I’m going to tell you why yet again. I’ll also use a news story that is in all the headlines to illustrate my point.

The War on Drugs was designed to stop illegal drug use and make illegal drugs harder to get. From a purely practical perspective it has failed completely. More people use drugs than ever before and they are more readily available than ever before despite flashy news stories about huge drug busts.

Our government has locked up huge numbers of adults for voluntarily purchasing drugs or selling drugs to an eager and willing market. Meanwhile doctors and pharmaceutical companies are doing exactly the same thing and making millions, nah, billions of dollars. More people die overdosing prescriptions drugs than illegal drugs.

Our police officers have been turned from heroes of the community into jackbooted thugs because of The War on Drugs. They tear families apart and terrorize the citizens of their communities. They degrade themselves. They subject themselves to horrible dangers and not infrequently die or suffer terrible injuries that need never have happened. The War on Drugs has not only torn apart the community but the entire police force. The police are forced by City Hall to rely on seized money to fund themselves. This too is a product of the War on Drugs. Police officers no longer say they “Protect and Serve” but merely they “Uphold the Law”. That’s bad for the community and horrible for the officers.

I speak out against the War on Drugs on the behalf of officers. If only they could go back to Protecting and Serving. They would be all the better and so would we.

And while all this horror is going on the doctors and pharmaceutical companies get rich. Rich! Stinking rich. Doing what? Selling drugs that are exactly the same chemically as those arbitrarily made illegal and sold at a huge markup to willing and eager customers. I want law enforcement officers to think about that. You police officers out there who are inclined to get angry at me for my rantings against the War on Drugs. Think about that. The government is using you to suppress competition for doctors and pharmaceutical companies from cheap alternatives to their cash cows. And it’s killing you. Killing your friends. Killing them!

While you’re risking your life to increase the profit of a pharmaceutical company the executives are dining at fancy restaurants and laughing at you. Ask yourself, brave and dedicated officers, why aren’t you busting doctors for selling far more of the exact same drug than any street dealer you will ever encounter? Why are you risking your life for them? Because only when we the people, and that includes you officers, decide that enough is enough will it stop.

We must end the War on Drugs. What an adult does with her or his body is up to them. Perhaps it is detrimental. Perhaps it is stupid. Perhaps it is deadly. But it is their decision.

There is no justification for what is happening and this story illustrates the point yet again.

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

What the word Fart has to Say about Your Integrity

Posted on by

rempel-may-fartThere’s a silly news story making the rounds that gives me an opportunity to ask you a question, so I’m going to do it.

Politician Michelle Rempel said the word “fart” in regards to how the province of Alberta was being treated by the Canadian Parliament. The leader of the opposition party, Elizabeth May, thought the word lacked decorum and called out Rempel. A war of words ensued.

What I want to examine is the idea that the word itself has no meaning at all to most people. It is the person who says it. Let’s pretend you have no idea what political parties Rempel and May represent. You simply know Rempel said the word fart in a place where normally one uses decorum.

I want you to think introspectively about yourself and your past behavior when answering this poll. Don’t immediately answer. Think about it. Then give me an answer.

Would your Comment about this Story Change based on Political Party?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

It’s my opinion that the vast majority of people are totally influenced by party affiliation. Which side they take on this issue has nothing to do with the word itself but the party affiliation of the person who said it. I’m also of the opinion that most people who answer this poll will deny that. They will answer that party affiliation has nothing to do with their answer.

Thus, I guess I’m saying most people I know will lie in order to support their political agenda. And they will do it with little awareness they are lying. They will tell their lie and believe they are telling the truth. Worse even than the means justify the ends. Lying supports the party I like and therefore it is the truth.

It’s my opinion this is where we are as a country, not just in Canada.

Finally I will discuss my opinion on the controversy although I hope you answer the poll before reading.

Rempel was in violation of simple decorum but not enormously, it was an impassioned speech. May was out of line in publically attacking Rempel. She should have simply pulled her aside quietly and suggested that such language is probably not best in parliament. Perhaps Rempel might have stood up the next day and explained that her passion carried her away and that she is sorry for her choice of words if not for the message. Maybe even have thanked May for pointing it out. Then May might have reciprocated explaining that she understood and heard Rempel’s message. That they might try to work together to solve the problem.

But then again, I’m just a silly dreamer who thinks we are headed toward Utopia.

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

The Duterte Blueprint to Ensure a Terrorist State

Posted on by

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

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

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

As a Libertarian I am amused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friendship vs Politics

Posted on by

friendshipIt’s been a rather awful political season and I’ve seen any number of friendships tested because of political differences. I’m a Libertarian so that means most of my friends think I’m an idiot. And, obviously, most of my friends actually are idiots! 😉

So I’m pondering the nature of friendship.

It’s one of the most important concepts in human history. It is friendship that binds people together. Friends find one another and choose to stay together. You are born to a family but you pick your friends. You pick them. Over the course of your life you keep some and lose others. In this modern age of communication it’s possible to maintain friendships with no concern for physical proximity.

These good friends will be with you for the bulk of your life. They help you overcome adversity. They go forth on adventures with you. They work with you and help you succeed in every aspect of life. In many ways they are more important than family. I think it can be argued that your friends are the most valued and treasured things in your life. More than anything else.

Aside from physics and a bit of biology; friendship built this world upon which you reside. Friendship created virtually every thing you value. Friendship.

Politics? Whatever.

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

What is Loyalty?

Posted on by

loyaltyThe 2016 presidential election in the United State is certainly a depressing, if blog generating, affair. The latest turn has Donald Trump accusing Republicans like Paul Ryan of being disloyal. Loyalty is a topic that I examine thoroughly in several of my novels including The Broken Throne and The Gray Horn.

I can unequivocally state that loyalty is a quality that we should all admire. The dictionary definition of loyalty does not truly convey what the word means. It is one of the things that holds the fabric of society together.

The state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to commitments or obligations.

Loyalty takes on many forms but at its essence it means that we trust and support people in our lives. It is being there when friends are in need. It is understanding that we can have disagreements but still be there. It is sacrificing our own well-being to ensure that those we love are safe or have things they need. It can be loyalty to a nation, to an idea, to a group, and to an individual.

I consider myself loyal to my Libertarian ideology. I take abuse for my thoughts. Quite a number of people who I consider friends have called me stupid to my face for such beliefs. I don’t hate them for it. I’m angry but if they needed my help I’d be there regardless. I’m loyal to the ideas of the United States even when things like the Patriot Act are part of that nation. I don’t agree. I fight against such things but I remain loyal to the ideas of the nation.

Loyalty is a good thing and we should surround ourselves with people who respect the idea. Who practice the idea. But we must be careful of those who speak most strenuously of loyalty and yet do not show any themselves. They are the thugs of the world who use words like loyalty and honor to manipulate those of us who respect such ideas into doing their bidding while in turn showing no such traits themselves.

In my novel The Sword of Water Jon Gray speaks rather directly to this idea in an important speech. I won’t repeat it here. Buy the book and read it. But the idea of his speech is very important.

There are certain people in this world who have no honor, no loyalty, who betray, back stab, and destroy anyone at anytime in order to further their own selfish ends. Thugs. They are to be particularly noted in that they condemn anyone who makes even the slightest objection to their rise as not having such traits. They understand the honorable and loyal will fall on the sword so to speak. That’s what good people do. Thugs manipulate that idea for their own gain.

I imagine you can see where I’m going with this. Donald Trump is the most disloyal human I’ve ever seen. He doesn’t pay his bills, he attacks former allies at the drop of a hat, he sues anyone at any time. He fires off hate filled diatribes at the slightest insult.

I understand there are many loyal people out there who defend Trump because they support the Republican Party or they support one or more causes in which they align with Trump. That’s fine. That’s your business. Vote for who you will.

I can only tell you one thing. Don’t expect that loyalty to be returned.

Tom Liberman