Tag Archives: law

Race, Religion, Geography and Chris Soules

Posted on by

chris soulesNot long ago a fellow by the name of Chris Soules smashed his truck into the rear end of a tractor and killed the driver. He then fled the scene and was arrested later that evening after refusing to come in voluntarily. Soules is a minor celebrity having participated in the television show, The Bachelor. He was a man of strong Christian faith. He is a Caucasian. He lived in a rural community in Iowa.

While reading the comments from a relative of the victim, it struck me how willing people were to find an excuse for Soules. He didn’t flee the scene, was merely driving away to go get help. That sort of thing. It’s clear to me people would not have been fooling themselves with irrational explanations if Soules had been of a darker skin color, from a city rather than rural environment, and if he didn’t express belief in Jesus as his savior.

I’m not pulling the racism card, the religion card, or the geography card. I’m just stating what I think is obvious fact. If Soules was black, a city dweller, and a Muslim; most people would not be looking to exonerate him. They would be laying down the blame, insisting on putting him in jail, throwing away the key.

We have perceptions of people in our minds because of these external things that, while not valid, drive our reaction to their deeds.

Let’s imagine we are going to a movie that received rave review. We’re excited, we think it’s going to be great, and our expectations are high. The movie is merely good. We come away disappointed. On the other hand, if the movie got awful reviews and we expected it to be bad; we come away elated. That wasn’t bad at all. I enjoyed it. That’s the affect expectations have upon us and there is nothing wrong with that. That’s reality.

However, this is where critical thinking, pragmatism, and being a decent human being come into play. Yes, we have expectations but it’s important to overcome those expectations and treat each situation as the facts dictate. If the movie was fairly entertaining but not great, then that’s what it was. That’s how you should describe it to friends when they ask you about it.

It’s not looking great for Soules. He wasn’t seeking help when he drove away from the crime. The police had to seek him out and execute a warrant on him. One of the main reasons people flee a vehicular accident is to cleanse their system of alcohol or other capacity diminishing drugs. Some five hours passed after the accident before Soules was arrested.

The accident was almost certainly just that. However, if he was driving under the influence when it happened and fled to avoid testing, then he is guilty of a terrible crime, regardless of race, religion, and geography.

Check your expectations at the door.

Tom Liberman

Faith Healers in Idaho and the Law

Posted on by

Faith HealersThere are a number of people in the United States who don’t believe in seeking medical attention because they think such efforts should be left to a divine being. These Faith Healers die quite frequently and so do their children. That’s where we run into a difficult situation involving the Constitution of the United States and the obligation of government to protect children.

If a legally capable adult foregoes medical treatment, there is nothing to be done about it. Faith Healers base their actions on religious beliefs. In the United States the government is not allowed to interfere in such cases. However, children are not legally capable of making their own decisions. If a parent is physically, mentally, or emotionally harming a child; they are generally breaking laws.

In many states, it is possible to intervene in a situation where a child’s life is being endangered by withholding medication, but not in Idaho, where I went to college. Many of the people in western states, including Idaho, strongly believe in individual liberty. I wrote a blog not long ago about how one of the most important lessons I learned while at the University of Idaho was avoiding interfering in another person’s business. It’s not right to tell them how to live. Thus, is not surprising Faith Healers have legal protection in the state.

Any metric based study of modern medicine indicates, without a doubt, medical intervention saves many lives. Many of the children and adults who die in the families of Faith Healers would still be alive today if they were treated.

Where does Idaho have an obligation to step in? Where should we mind our own business? Is it proper to stand by and watch a child die when they most likely could be saved with medical intervention? Is it proper to allow families to treat their children as they see fit?

Much as it pains me to say, I think the state should stay out of these situations. The children have no say into what family they are born into and their fate is avoidable and terrible. The onus for their death falls not on the state, not on me, but on their guardians who chose not to seek medical care. Horrible as it is.

One would hope that children who survive in such a family, who witness their siblings’ avoidable death, would choose to leave such a religion. That eventually no one would believe in Faith Healing and no children would die unnecessary deaths. Sadly, their death is the price of liberty, of freedom. It’s a terrible and painful price. An awful price for children who had no say in the matter. I do not deny this.

It’s not always easy to believe in individual liberty when the people practicing it are incredibly stupid. When this stupidity results in the death of their children.

Tom Liberman

Mortgage Relief Scams and Why Lawyers are Good

Posted on by

lawyersThere is never a shortage of people trying to figure out ways to take your valuables and lawyers are your ally. The financial crisis from a few years ago created a large group of people who needed mortgage relief. These people fell far behind in the mortgage payments and became vulnerable targets.

While the mortgage crisis has largely abated, that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of people who remain in financial trouble. These people go to lawyers in an attempt to restructure their loans and obtain financial relief. The problem is that lawyers give good advice. This means there are no miracle fixes. Scammers, on the other hand, are not in the same way restricted. They offer fixes that are too good to be true.

Sadly, desperate people are vulnerable.

In full disclosure, I come from a family of lawyers. My father, uncle, brother, sister, cousins, and others make their money in the legal profession. I have always held lawyers in high esteem. I’ve seen my father and other family members help people out of terrible situations. There is, unfortunately, a large segment of society that does not feel the same way about lawyers as do I.

People love a good lawyer joke, and there is a general perception that lawyers are out to scam people from their money. I’m not denying there are unethical lawyers in this world, but one of the first things scammers will ask you to do is fire your current lawyer. People are often willing to do this because their legal bills are piling up and the resolution offered by the scammer has the appearance of easily solving the debtor’s issues.

Once you are without proper legal representation you are in trouble. The same goes for many situations in life. If you find a reputable lawyer you will have to pay for legal services, and that isn’t cheap. It might seem like a better idea to try and work your way out of issues without a lawyer but that way leads to danger.

The average person doesn’t have the ability to read a legal document and understand what they are signing. When you are presented with a complex document that promises to fix all of whatever financial troubles you are facing, it’s far better to pay a lawyer than to risk total disaster.

I’m well aware that a charge of potential thousands of dollars for someone already in financial distress is a painful price to pay. That it’s pretty easy to tell yourself you don’t need a lawyer. That’s one of the things scammers count on. They know their victim is vulnerable and can be convinced to forego sound legal advice. That’s when they have you.

There are many great lawyers out there who help people in financial distress. They’ll setup a payment plan that will be painful. They’ll help find a way for you to move forward although it won’t be pleasant. The old adage that if it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true is as accurate today as it was in the past. Perhaps even more so.

If you find yourself in a difficult financial situation my advice is simple. Find a good lawyer.

Tom Liberman

Loperamide and Why Drug Laws will Never Work

Posted on by

loperamidePeople are overdosing on a drug called Loperamide, which is meant to be used as an anti-diarrheal medication. Loperamide has been available over the counter for many years and there are currently no restrictions on purchasing it. I suspect that will change in yet another misguided chapter of the War on Drugs.

I find this new, supposed, crisis, to be extremely illustrative of the problem with drug interdiction. No matter how many drugs we restrict, there will always be something else that people will take. People will inhale gases from whipped cream dispensers. People will overdose on Loperamide. There is no way to stop people from seeking out chemical stimulants through interdiction. We must accept that those who wish to do so, will find a way.

A far better solution is attempting to treat the person’s desire to use chemical agents. This is the root cause. If we can help people not want to use such agents anymore, then we alleviate the underlying problem. Will we ever completely eliminate drug abuse? Of course not, if that’s your goal then you are doomed to a life of disappointment.

Let’s examine what government’s solution to the Loperamide crisis is likely to involve. Much like Ephedrine, there will almost certainly be regulations to limit the amount purchased. Basically, anyone who attempts to buy more than two boxes at once will be turned away. What is the result? The people who want Loperamide are forced to go to alternate sources.

Enterprising people, seeing profits, will hire teams of young people to purchase single boxes at every retail outlet for miles around. They will then sell these to users at a great profit. Police will then start arresting anyone who purchases boxes at different retail outlets. Anyone who wants to buy Loperamide will have to give personal information in order to make the purchase.

It will be a cycle of interdiction that largely fails to achieve its goal. Then a new drug will be found by addicts to substitute for Loperamide. The cycle will repeat endlessly.

I think it’s incredibly important to understand these facts for they explain, in no uncertain terms, why the War on Drugs has been, and continues to be, an abject failure. This after countless lives have been ruined, not by drug abuse, but by the attempts to save people from drug abuse. This after untold billions of dollars have been spent.

We try the exact same solution again and again despite its many failures. There are reasons for this and they mostly involve the vast amount of money interdiction provides for law enforcement, government, the penal system, and others. The War on Drugs is profitable for certain groups of people while it simply destroys others.

The question we must ask ourselves is if we truly want to help people? If we find the horrors of drug abuse and the atrocities engendered by drug interdiction to be unpalatable, perhaps we need to try to different solutions.

If that’s the case, if you are a decent human being. If you value lives more than money. We need to abandon interdiction as a method. We must embrace other tactics.

Tom Liberman

Charging Bull and Fearless Girl Statues at Odds in more ways than One

Posted on by

Girl-and-Charging-BullThe fight between the Charging Bull and the Fearless Girl just left the park and headed to the courts!

I am the son of a lawyer, the brother of two lawyers, and the cousin of even more lawyers. I find law fascinating and when I read the artist who created the Charging Bull, Arturo Di Modica, plans to file a lawsuit against New York City in regards to the Fearless Girl statue placed nearby, well, I had to learn more. And learn I did!

I suspect Di Modica doesn’t have a case seeing as he installed the Charging Bull as an act of Guerilla Art back in 1989. The police seized it but then replaced it a few blocks away because of its popularity. It has remained there on a temporary permit ever since. The worst-case scenario for the city is likely that Di Modica moves it to a new location, at his expense.

Di Modica is a rather litigious fellow so we will see.

Meanwhile, the statue of a young girl facing down the bull was commissioned, created, and placed by State Street Global Advisors as part of an advertising campaign coinciding with International Women’s Day. This statue is referenced as the Fearless Girl. It was placed legally with a permit for one week. It also proved popular and the temporary permit has been extended in the same way as the Charging Bull’s was.

Another incredibly interesting thing is why Di Modica is planning to involve the courts. It is something called Artistic Integrity. Di Modica believes Fearless Girl changes the integrity of his art. The Charging Bull is meant to symbolize aggressive financial optimism. Fearless Girl staring down the bull seems to change this meaning. Now, at least in the minds of some people, Charging Bull is a symbol of aggressive bullying.

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think Di Modica has a chance in court, but I still wanted to examine this idea. I’m an artist. I write books. Is it really up to me challenge the meaning one, or many, of my readers choose to assign to events in those books? When Jon Gray tangles with High Priest Amalagaz I certainly intend the scene to have particularly meaning, specific artistic integrity. There is a point to it.

If a reader came to me with a completely difference conclusion, I’d certainly explain what I meant by the scene. That being said, I’d have no legal basis to challenge the right of someone else to believe what they want. Likewise, if Barnes & Noble chose to put my ostensibly Sword and Sorcery Fantasy books on the shelf with Mystery Novels I would have little recourse other than telling them not to sell my books.

I strongly suspect Di Modica is simply drumming up publicity and his threatened lawsuit will eventually go away.

Still, I’m glad he filed it because I learned a lot of things today. I hope you did also.

Tom Liberman

Closing Liquor Stores in Whiteclay to Solve Alcoholism

Posted on by

Badlands_in_South_DakotaI just read a terrible story about a little town in Nebraska that serves one purpose. It supplies alcohol to Native Americans living just across the border in South Dakota at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Whiteclay has a population of 14 and four liquor stores and the stores sell about 13,000 cans of beer a day. These sales result in a contribution of nearly half a million dollars to the state coffers of Nebraska. This does not include revenue from the thousands of DUI tickets given to drivers leaving the town.

At least some of the beer is sold to bootleggers who take it directly onto the reservation and sell it there at an inflated price. This because alcohol is illegal to sell on the reservation.

Pine Ridge is, by any reasonable judgment, a heartbreaking tragedy. Unemployment is around 80%. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is rampant. Almost half the residents live in poverty. The people have the shortest life expectancy in the western hemisphere.

Many people want to close the liquor stores in Whiteclay to alleviate some of the terrible problems on the reservation.

And thus I am triggered. I could spend time talking about how adults must be allowed to make their own decisions. I could talk about how the residents of the reservation will just drive to the next town to get liquor if Whiteclay is shut down. I might point out the obvious fact that bootleggers will simply bring in increased amounts of alcohol and increase their prices.

Instead I simply explain the root of the problem. Alcohol sales are illegal on the reservation. This was done to combat alcoholism among Native Americans. It has not only failed to solve the problem but created a host of ancillary issues. Drunk driving, public intoxication in Whiteclay, criminal activity in the form of bootleggers, the eyesore of Whiteclay itself.

All of these problems go away if liquor sales are allowed on the reservation. Not only that but the stores would employ people. They would generate profits and tax revenue for the Native Americans to use to help alcoholics.

The problem that won’t go away is alcoholism among residents. That’s true. I freely admit it. That is a bigger task beyond the scope of my article today. It is a task worth taking on. People’s lives are at stake. But not for me, not today at least.

My point today is simple. A law was passed in order to prevent the residents of Pine Ridge from having easy access to alcohol. It has failed utterly and created a host of other problems. A lesson to be learned.

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

Anita Krajnc and Giving Water to Pigs

Posted on by

anita-krajnc-water-pigsThere’s an interesting case about to be adjudicated in Ontario, Canada in which a woman named Anita Krajnc poured water into a truck full of pigs heading to slaughter from Fearmans Pork. She is only charged with a misdemeanor charge of mischief and the case is not exactly earth shattering but it demonstrates a fundamental problem, as I see it, with our general society these days.

What we have is two groups who seem to be, at a cursory glance, at complete and total opposite ends of a spectrum. Krajnc belongs to a group called Toronto Pig Save and Fearmans Pork makes a living off raising and slaughtering pigs.

I don’t think I need to go into details as to why these two groups are facing off in court. Nor do I want to spend time talking about the merits of the case against Krajnc. I won’t extoll on the virtues of the cause nor talk about the value of bringing the pigs to slaughter or even of a free market and supply side economics. All of those things are worth discussing but not by me and not today.

What do I want to talk about? Good question.

What I want to talk about is how people on opposite sides of the spectrum all too often, and as a first response, resort to antagonistic behavior when there is actually common ground upon which they could join.

Common ground? Between Pig Save activists and Fearmans Pork? Yes, indeed. There is far more common ground on a lot of issues than people realize.

Krajnc would like to give the pigs some water while they are in the truck heading to slaughter. That’s a nice sentiment to be honest. Animals heading to slaughter are sometimes not properly cared for near the end of their life because to feed and water them at such a late stage is an expense. It’s cheaper not to do so.

What Krajnc did was climb on the truck and pour water from a bottle onto the pigs. The truck driver and pig owners were naturally worried that something more nefarious is going on and want to protect their property.

A better choice from my perspective would be Toronto Pig Save simply asking Fearmans Pork if they could pay for the expense of giving the pigs one last drink of water before heading to slaughter. When Fearmans Pork found out what Krajnc was up to they could have offered some sort of system by which she was allowed to water the pigs more effectively.

Would this have solved the issue from Toronto Pig Save’s perspective? No, naturally not. They don’t want pigs going to slaughter at all, but at least they could have given the animals some water before the inevitable. Can Fearmans Pork simply have such activists arrested for such behavior? Yes, of course, and they did. But couldn’t they also have suggested a system by which the pigs did get a last drink of water at the expense of Toronto Pig Save?

No solution is going to make everyone happy but it seems to me that we can get more accomplished if we work together, even with those who are apparently on the opposite side of an issue.

What if abortion foes and supporters worked together, spent their time and money, on preventing unwanted pregnancies? What if Animal Activists and Factory Farm owners worked together to improve the life and health of the animals?

How much time, passion, and money is spent on activities that don’t do anything to make the problem better, but simply caress the egos of the parties on both sides. “We’ll put those animal nutcases in prison!” “We’ll show the world the horror of factory farms!”

The comment sections of every story are filled with people who live in this black and white world. My way or no way at all.

I’ll end my post in the same way President Trump often does. However, unlike him; I don’t mean it as in pathetic. I mean it as so much wasted energy, effort, time, and money.

Sad.

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

In some Countries a Speeding Ticket for a Sports Star is a Big Deal

Posted on by

moana-hopeI’m fairly certain that most of my readers are aware that I love sports. I fell in love with Australian Rules football a few years back when it was broadcast on ESPN3. I still follow the sport and something happened this weekend that makes me think. Two players in the game, one a man and one a woman, were caught speeding.

If you say big deal then it’s likely you are much like me and completely inured to sports stars behaving badly here in the United States. In Australia it’s a big story. Both players are facing serious trouble and potential suspensions. The teams are issuing strong words about expecting better from their players, how they take road safety quite seriously.

There is all sorts of chatter on the Collingwood Facebook page about the incident.

It’s not easy to compare a country with a smaller population like Australia to a large one like the United States where we have far more sports stars in a wider variety of sports. The reaction in Australia to the incident, which would probably not even rise to the level of an actual news story in the United States, does raise an interesting question.

Do Australians hold athletes to a higher standard than we do here in the United States?

If so, why?

I certainly think the population of the two nations has something to do with it but perhaps there are cultural differences to account for as well. In Australia police are given wide latitude in interdictions on traffic violations. In Australia the police can stop you while driving at any time for no reason and check for intoxication or pretty much anything else, they have no Fourth Amendment restrictions.

Is this good? Bad? Does it effect how things like speeding are viewed by the general populace?

I’m not really sure I have any world altering conclusion here but I do find the entire thing quite interesting.

I’m a big fan of the Fourth Amendment. I think allow government officials to stop people for no reason is an extremely bad idea. I’m also not a huge fan of vilifying people for relatively minor transgressions. Who among us hasn’t driven faster than the speed limit?

What do you think? Is the culture for sports stars too forgiving in the United States? Too harsh in Australia? Somewhere in between?

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

Ticketed for Leaving Car Running in Driveway

Posted on by

ticket-taylorThere’s an interesting story making the news regarding a fellow named Nick Taylor or Taylor Trupiano (depending on which article you read) who was ticketed in Roseville, Michigan because he left his car running and unattended in the driveway of his girlfriend’s home.

The reason for the law, according to Roseville Police Chief James Berlin, is that thieves sometimes steal cars that are left in this state, usually during winter months. Cars thus stolen must be dealt with by law enforcement officials. The police must investigate the crime and track down the criminal and might even have to engage in high-speed chases. The investigation costs money and the chases are dangerous to bystanders. Chief Berlin is unabashedly a supporter of such laws.

You all know me by now. I’m a Libertarian. I think the law is ludicrous but let’s take some time to examine why.

Let us take Chief Berlin’s assertion at face value. There are cars stolen in this manner. Investigating such events does cost money. A high-speed chase might result.

Let’s also take a look at some Libertarian points of view on the subject. Leaving a running car in your driveway hurts no one directly. It is a convenience in cold weather. It is your car. It is private property.

Now I want to examine Chief Berlin’s arguments

His first argument is largely that the law is designed to protect people from themselves. You might get your car stolen if you act in a careless fashion. I don’t think the state should be protecting us from our own stupidity. If we are stupid and do stupid things that is our business. Would we want police officers to fine someone wearing a nice watch in a bad part of town? The crime is committed by the thief, even if we act irresponsibly and put ourselves in dangerous situations. That’s our business, not the state’s business.

His second argument is that it costs money for the police to investigate crime. Yes. That’s true. That’s their job. People pay taxes to support the police force in doing this job. We should not be taxing through citation. This problem is largely created by municipalities that fail to fully fund their police force and use it as a cash cow to rake in revenue for City Hall. Which is, of course, the real reason behind the ordinance, not that Chief Berlin or the Mayor of Roseville would ever admit as much. Fully fund the police force. If crimes occur they will attempt to solve them. I certainly wouldn’t object to community outreach to explain not to leave your car unattended because it invites thieves.

His final argument is that high-speed chases endanger the public. He’s right. They do. And police should not engage in such chases for the safety of the citizens of the town and the officers themselves. Chases make sense when the criminal is violent and dangerous but do not make any sense for a car thief. Yes, the thief might get away. That’s true. But also: Yes, innocent people and officers themselves die in such chases. They aren’t worth it.

There are a lot of factors that go into such ordinances as we see in Roseville but as a Libertarian I cannot countenance them. Bad laws make people hate police officers. And that’s something law enforcement agencies would do well to consider.

When police work with the community both are served.

Should warming up the car unattended be a crime?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Sotomayor and Scalia Misleading Headline

Posted on by

supreme-court-justicesAh, one has to love those misleading headlines. This one involves Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and former Justice Antonin Scalia who passed away early in 2016.

The headline intimates that Sotomayor was so angry at Scalia that she wanted to hit him with a baseball bat. Those are the words she uses but the full quote gives a very different impression.

Here it is: I’ve told people there are things he said on the bench when if I had a baseball bat, I might have used it, but when you work so intimately with people, you get to know the really personal good side of them.

Essentially she is saying despite differences they grew to respect and like each other. Or at least she him although I suspect the feeling was mutual. Certainly the friendship between Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was well documented. They might disagree, vehemently, on a position but they didn’t let that get in the way of their personal relationships.

Reading the comments there are two themes. One that someone should take a baseball bat to Sotomayor. The other that Sotmayor should have actually taken the bat to Scalia. Both are commentaries about We the People. How we handle disagreement. It’s a shame so few of us can behave like Sotomayor, Scalia, Bader Ginsburg and their colleagues.

This willingness to take political and ideological differences into a deeply personal and hate fueled realm does not bode well for the future of the Grand Experiment.

We are, the all of us, in this together. So few seem to recognize it anymore.

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

When Prisoners Work should they be Paid?

Posted on by
prisoners-working-slave-labor

I just read an interesting story from the Guardian which brings up memories of movies like The Shawshank Redemption and Cool Hand Luke.

What is happening and happened in the past is prisoners in the penal system do work but are paid either nothing for this work or a few pennies an hour. We’re all aware the United States incarcerates far more of its population than any other country in the world. That we largely use private contractors to house these prisoners. These private contractors get your tax dollars to run the prisons and operate on a profit system. They want more prisoners because that accrues more tax dollars into their pockets.

Harm to Contractors

The problem here is they are using prisoners to do the work in the prisons and additional work outside the prison. This avoids payment to contractors who would otherwise be doing the work in the system. Generating further profits for work done outside the system.

Questions

Q1: Is it right to use prisoners as essentially slave labor because they were convicted of a crime?

A1: If you want prisoners to work then pay them a fair wage for their work. That’s capitalism. Certainly doing so would drive up the cost of incarcerating people but I think the reasons I’m going to enumerate in answering the other questions fully justifies such an expense.

Q2: Is it right to pay private prison contractors money for things like laundry service when the prisoners are providing it essentially for free?

A2: I’m absolutely in disagreement with this practice. If private prisons are going to use prisoners as slave labor then the government should not be paying the private company for the services rendered. The state is paying the prison to feed, cloth, house, and otherwise take care of the prisoner. The private company should be doing so out of the money paid to them from tax dollars.

Q3: What effect on other companies does using prisoners for work have on the economy of the region?

A3: This is the answer that goes to the very heart of the problem from a capitalistic point of view. Slavery was terrible for the economies of the southern states for the simple reason it took jobs away from otherwise able workers. It stole profits from companies wanting to provide the service that slaves did, and slavery worked against innovation and technology. For the exact same reasons we should not be employing prisoners to do work for free or for ridiculously low wages. Every service a prisoner provides is work taken from an able-bodied person. It removes profits that could be made for the company employing said person.

Conclusion

I’m not opposed to prisoners working but they should be paid fair wages for said work. This has additional benefits. It gives prisoners a sense of worth and accomplishment in finishing tasks. It gives prisoners money to accumulate for their eventual release which makes their rehabilitation into society significantly less difficult. Prisoners should also have access to educational material so that they can, should they so choose, improve their chances of getting gainful employment when released.

Finally I’m opposed to using prisoners as slaves simply on ethical grounds. It is wrong to force another person to labor without wages under any circumstances. Prisoner or not.

What do you think?

Should prisoners be paid fair wages for their work while incarcerated?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Kaepernick, Solo, and How to be Consistent

Posted on by

solo-kaepernickThere are two interesting stories in the sports world these days. A soccer player named Hope Solo said some nasty things after losing a soccer game and a football player named Colin Kaepernick is refusing to stand during the National Anthem.

People seem to have inconsistent viewpoints on these two things. Not about the actions themselves but about how the employers of these two athletes should treat said actions.

Many people think Solo has every right to say what she wants and the league should not be able suspend her because of freedom of speech. Many people think the United States Soccer Federation is well within their rights to suspend her.

Many people also think that Kaepernick has every right to say, or in this case not stand, and the league or team cannot suspend him. Others think the National Football League or the San Francisco 49ers have every reason to and should suspend or even fire him.

What I find interesting is that largely the people who are think Solo should not be suspended support suspending Kaepernick. Those who think Solo’s suspension is legitimate think that Kaepernick should be subject to no penalty.

My loyal readers, I’m here to tell you there is only one correct answer. Do not argue. Do not debate. Do not interrupt. Read.

Keapernick and Solo have every right to speak their mind. They can say nasty things about opponents and refuse to stand for the anthem. The government cannot and should not be able to arrest them for such actions or words. That’s what Freedom of Speech as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States means.

The USSF, the NFL, and the 49ers have every right to fire or suspend either of them. It’s their business and they can largely discipline employees as they see fit.

That’s it. There is no argument. Go home and have a nice meal with someone you love!

Peace.

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

DEA Profiles Travelers and Takes their Cash

Posted on by

money-seizedI’ve written about police seizures in the past but the story I just read brings my hate of them into even starker contrast.

The DEA pays clerks at travel agencies to find travelers who make short duration trips, one-way trips, trips paid for in cash, trips made by people with past criminal records, and various other “flags”. They then pull said traveler aside and ask if they can search their luggage. If refused they bring in dogs to sniff for drugs.

If what happens next doesn’t disturb you then you should probably stop reading my blog. If you have money, they take it and say see you later. No charges. No questioning. Just snatch and grab.

By the way drug sniffing dogs are awful at their job. They fail more than they succeed and in a statistic that tells it all, they fail more often with minority suspects. That clearly means the dogs are taking cues from their handlers to “report” a positive. That’s not my point but I hope you’re disturbed by it in any case.

The key here is that they are not interested in stopping crime, in making your neighborhood safe, in protecting and serving. They are interested in taking money, no matter its source. There are numerous cases where they took the money and after a long legal proceeding gave some of it back. Some of it!

The drug trade does a good job of making drug manufacturers and dealers wealthy but the drug interdiction trade does a better job of paying the salaries of tens of thousands of government workers who would otherwise be unemployed, or horror of horrors, actually protecting and serving rather than terrorizing and stealing!

There’s no excuse for this, none. I don’t believe in the War on Drugs at all. I think all drugs should be legal. Don’t get me started. All drugs are legal, just certain brands not controlled by the pharmaceutical industry are illegal. But even if you do believe drugs are harmful and we should be preventing their distribution I find it hard to believe you would be on board with taking money from drug dealers and letting them go without even trying to convict them. All that does is make them go back and get more drugs! The loss of cash is an operating expense.

The drug interdiction agents are actually incentivized to not charge drug dealers. They are much better off taking the money and letting the dealers go back and make more money which agents can then steal, I mean seize, at a later date!

Drug money has corrupted our government and our law enforcement agencies at the highest level. They are more interested in making, I mean seizing, money than in stopping crime!

Do you still believe in the War on Drugs?

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

Corruption Wins – Supreme Court Vacates Bob McDonnell Case

Posted on by
BOB-MCDONNELL

An interesting corruption case has been slowly moving through the court system here in the United States. The Supreme Court rendered their decision in June of this year.

The former Governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell and his wife received gifts, trips, loans, and other items from a lobbyist of a pharmaceutical company. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court the justices seemed to be of the opinion that the way McDonnell went about doing his business was perfectly normal. Their line of questioning seemed to indicate that accepting trips, gifts, loans, and other largesse from lobbyists was so pervasive that to put McDonnell in prison would essentially open every politician to such prosecution and bring government to a stop. That a political motivated prosecutor could attack anyone from the opposite party at will.

Corruption is Already Legal

The final decision indicates the court thinks corruption is completely institutionalized and there is nothing to be done about it. They vacated the sentence against McDonnell in a unanimous decision.

The point seems to be that for a government official to be charged with corruption related crimes they must state a willingness to work on behalf of the person giving the bribe. If they simply take the bribe and give that person access to public officials. When they work to pass legislation helping the briber, that is not a crime. Only if the politician explicitly declares plans to help the person in exchange for the gifts is it a crime. Good to know … if you’re a politician or a lobbyist. Don’t ask, don’t tell indeed. Here’s a trip to Europe for you and your family. Have a house for your child, a Rolex for you, say no more, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Where do I Stand?

So, you are probably wondering, where do you stand on this issue, Tom? I’m glad you asked because I’m happy to tell you.

The Supreme Court Justices were perfectly correct. If what McDonnell does passes for criminal corruption then there are precious few members of Congress that should not be in jail. It is the norm. Lobbyist providing fine dinners, alcohol, sports tickets, trips, business favors to family and friends, loans, and gifts is rampant and pervasive. A zealous president with no morals, a mean streak, and a vindictive personality could well order the Justice Department to attack and imprison all foes using this case as a precedent.

It’s reality. I certainly don’t like it but I’m also a pragmatist and I don’t think there is a judicial fix to the corruption that pervades our system of government. Crony capitalism is entrenched.

Solutions

What to do? There is no simple answer. The main issue seems to me to be that legislators control how well a business does by passing legislation that favors one company or another. By allowing politicians to control business we invite corruption. If we limit laws regulating businesses, we limit the interest a business owner has in influencing a politician and the ability of said politician to favor a particular business.

The less power government has the less interested is anyone in influencing the politicians.

Tom Liberman

Brian Everidge, Seinfeld, Recycling, and how we Create Criminals

Posted on by

michigan-recyclingThere’s an instructive story in the news today about a young entrepreneur/criminal named Brian Everidge who stole a plot from Seinfeld and tried to recycle some 10,000 beverage  containers gathered outside of Michigan. Michigan pays ten cents for each such container which is the highest price in the United States.

This refund fee is paid for when the original container is purchased by the consumer with a ten cent surcharge built into the price.

The idea behind the plan is to encourage people to recycle. This is government trying to get us to behave in a way they desire. It certainly has an effect as Michigan has the highest recycling rate in the nation. This number must be taken with some skepticism because clearly people like Everidge are bringing in containers from surrounding states and collecting the deposit, thus boosting the rate.

There is another side of this. Consumers are paying ten cents for every such container but about 10% of them are not being returned for deposit. So, what is done with this “extra” money? That’s where we start to see ulterior motives. 80% of the money is given to the state earmarked for the cleanup of polluted sites. The merchant selling the bottle gets the other 20%. That’s a lot of money.

In addition we make criminals out of people like Everidge. Certainly everyone who lives near the Michigan border takes advantage of the system to purchase outside the state and redeem within.

Proponents of the plan will point out that it saves the state money in cleanup and also helps the environment. That is completely correct.

I’m certainly not opposed to recycling nor blind to its cost benefits. My problem here is the ten cent fee has created thousands of criminals. This is a pattern we see everywhere in the United States. Laws which are designed to be helpful essentially create criminals and encourage criminal behavior. The result of the fee should have been painfully apparent.

I’m not going to offer alternative solutions here, of which I’m sure there are some. My point is we should not write laws that encourage people to be criminals, no matter the other supposed benefits.

This is how we end up with a police officers spending their time pursuing things that should not be criminal in the first place, how we alienate police from the communities they serve, how we create a prison population second to none in the world at an expense of $74 billion a year.

We should not be looking for more way to put people in jail. For laws that give people a financial incentive to commit crimes.

I recognize this is an isolated incident and a relatively minor law but I find it educational. This is a law that tries to encourage people to recycle but in fact encourages them to break the law.

Legislators, think hard before passing laws. We have far too many and the result is plain to see.

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

They Never Learn – Slaphouses, Police, Gambling

Posted on by

slaphouse-boxI just read a story about something called Slaphouses in an area of California just outside what is called Little Saigon. It is an area where a number of Vietnamese live having come there during and just after the Vietnam War. Gambling is common in the Vietnamese culture, as it is in almost all cultures.

Gambling is largely illegal in California but, as we all know, making something illegal doesn’t prevent it from happening. In order to serve customers who liked to gamble, a number of Vietnamese coffee shops in the region had video gambling games on the premises. These were setup so that at the flick of a switch the bartender could make them appear to be regular games which didn’t involve gambling.

For some reason the authorities decided to swoop in and shut them all down. Yay! Gambling stopped! Society saved! Right?

Of course not. It doesn’t take much to figure out what happened. People still wanted to gamble. The public places where they could do so were shut down. So people started hosting gambling parties at residential sites. What people? Well, criminals of course. So now we’ve got large gatherings of noisy people in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Of course the neighbors complain. So would I. Of course the criminals running the houses introduce drugs and are happy to charge up stolen credit cards. They have no problem intimidating neighbors or even paying them off. That’s the nature of crime.

So now the police are raiding these gambling houses with guns and dogs. The last line of the article says it all. Westminster police Sgt. Darin Upstill – You shut them down enough times, they’ll be out.

No, sergeant Uphill. No they won’t. They’ll just find another way to do business which will likely, if it doesn’t already, involve corrupting the local police force.

The end result is that instead of allowing people to gamble in a public place in a way that profits legal businesses, we drive the entire thing underground funneling money to criminals. Such laws don’t crack down on crime, they encourage it, they fund it! They alienate the police force from the community they are trying to serve. We see the horrific results of that alienation daily. That alienation results in tragedy for both the community and the fine men and women doing the policing.

Will we never learn? Ever?

It’s just discouraging. The solution is so obvious. Let people gamble!

Yes, people will gamble away their lives. It’s the price of freedom. Freedom is free, it’s just not safe.

The United States just doesn’t stand for freedom anymore, it doesn’t. It stands for passing as many laws to restrict its citizens as possible with the illusion of safety as the excuse. That’s the opposite of freedom.

I’ve quoted Mr. Benjamin Franklin before and I’ll do it again. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

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

Wisconsin Prison Bans Dungeons and Dragons

Posted on by

Dungeons_and_Dragons_MiniaturesA story that hits me in my proverbial breadbasket just came across the wires. The Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin banned playing Dungeons and Dragons (no word on Pathfinder) by inmates.

I’m a role-playing game enthusiast to say the least. I love playing such games. I think it’s ridiculous that those in power think playing the game might encourage escape fantasies among the inmates. I imagine the escape fantasies are already on their mind. A fellow named Kevin T. Singer is incarcerated at that institution and had a regular Dungeons and Dragons game with fellow inmates.

Let’s cut to the chase. Prison officials do not believe that playing Dungeons and Dragons constitutes an escape or violence risk. They just wanted to make life more difficult for Singer. They found a ridiculous rational for doing so, implemented it, and laughed as they took away his books and homemade material. Ha, they said, we’re in charge and we get to tell you what to do.

The courts agreed. Even though there is no evidence that such games cause troubles in prisons (because they don’t), the court sided with the prison.

Sadly, I agree with the courts. The removal of role-playing games is something the prison can enforce. The inmates have been duly convicted of a crime. A particularly brutal murder in this case. The authorities run the prison and unless they are taking away a Constitutionally guaranteed right, they can do as they will.

My message today is for the prison officials. You are not making Wisconsin or this nation any safer. By using your power to bully and punish a prisoner, for the simple reason that you can, you actually increase the chance said prisoner will learn to hate authority figures all the more. The prison should run the damned game, if you’ll pardon my choice language. They should encourage inmates to work as a team and learn to appreciate those in authority don’t have to be jackbooted thugs. That they can actually be interested in the well-being of their charges.

Being in a position of authority is a tremendous responsibility. You can influence people in a good way and make this world a better place or you satisfy your sadistic urges to hurt and demean people.

I’m certainly not saying Singer is a wonderful person. The fact remains that he and other prisoners may someday return to society. Isn’t it in our best interest to make sure they return better than they went in, not worse?

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