Tag Archives: Libertarian

Censorship and Freedom of Speech

Posted on by
Censorship and Freedom of Speech

The other day at a Halloween party I got into a discussion with a fellow who seemed to have a confused idea of the relationship between Censorship and Freedom of Speech. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this misunderstanding both in person and more commonly in the comments section on news articles.

Today I spotted a story that I think highlights people’s confusion and I hope might illustrate the difference for you.

What is the Confusion in Censorship and Freedom of Speech?

The confusion I see fairly frequently is any type of censorship is a violation of freedom of speech. People who make this mistake generally do so because it leads them to believe their political favorites are being denied their freedom of speech through censorship.

In reality, censorship is, in most cases, actually an example of freedom of speech.

The Situation that illustrates the Proper Relationship

How are censorship and freedom of speech connected? I think sports organizations illustrate the real relationship between the two fairly well. The Big 12 athletic conferenced fined Utah Athletic Director Mark Harlan for his pointed criticism of referees after BYU defeated Utah in a football game.

My party friend would certainly argue Harlan is suffering from censorship and a denial of his freedom of speech but this is false.

The freedom of speech issue at stake here is the conference’s ability to apply censorship to members of their organization. If the government came in and fined or imprisoned the conference officials for their punishment of Harlan, that would be a violation of their freedom of speech.

The act of censorship is not a violation of freedom of speech but is actually, in this case, an expression of it. Freedom of Speech is a concept that applies to the government preventing people from speaking out, generally in a negative way about the government, but also more broadly as well.

When the Big 12 censors Harlan, which they are most certainly doing, they are not violating his freedom of speech, they are actually exercising their own.

Any organization, other than the government, can censor people as part of their rules and regulations. Even the government can do so under various circumstances. The Hatch Act prevents government officials from expressing partisanship. This is, obviously, censorship, but it is not violation of freedom of speech.

Are Athletic Organizations right to Censor Criticism of Officials?

This is another question entirely and one I thought I’d touch on briefly. I think everyone should be able to criticize anyone else, slander and defamation excluded, without fear of penalty. But that being said, the people who make the rules for the Big 12 conference are entitled to do so at their whim. As are the other athletic organizations that largely have the same rule in regards to criticism of officials.

Conclusion

None of us like it when someone speaking on a subject with which we agree is censored by an organization, but it is not a violation of freedom of speech. Understanding the relationship between censorship and freedom of speech is part of being free, although so is misunderstanding it.

Tom Liberman

Does Exercising your Rights Piss off Law Enforcement?

Posted on by
Law Enforcement

At the old man’s retired club breakfast the other day an interesting topic of conversation came up in regards to law enforcement officers. Well, it’s always an interesting conversation with the old man’s retired club but this one struck my Libertarian fancies.

We were speaking about getting pulled over by law enforcement officers and sobriety tests. We were all in agreement that passing a sobriety test while completely sober was something beyond our old man capabilities and I suggested that if such a situation were to arise, refuse to take the test.

One of my fellow old men suggested this would piss off the law enforcement officer and I found myself in agreement. That’s what I’d like to examine today.

Law Enforcement doesn’t like it when you Exercise your Constitutional Rights

At the time I didn’t think much about my friend’s comment. I basically agreed with it. A law enforcement officer who runs into someone who refuses to comply, citing the Constitution as the reason, is going to get angry.

But why? Aren’t law enforcement officers sworn to uphold the law? Isn’t the Constitution of the United States the highest law in the land? Shouldn’t officers not only respect your declaration of rights but actually applaud it. You’re right, old man. That is your right and I’m not only proud of you for knowing it, but I’ll fight for you against anyone who tries to take it away.

That should be the response but it’s not. I find that troubling. I find it troubling that officers are encouraged to lie to you, deceive you into giving away your rights, taking advantage of this surrender, and attempting to penalize you as much as possible.

Doesn’t Exercising my Constitutional Right make Law Enforcement’s job Harder?

At first glance, it sure does. But maybe not. When people give up their rights, they make it significantly easier to be convicted of a crime, sometimes, certainly not always, but sometimes a crime they did not commit.

We end up prosecuting a lot of people who actually didn’t commit a crime at all. It’s not the job of a law enforcement to determine guilt or innocence. If such an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place, they must simply arrest the person and turn the rest of the matter over to the justice system. That’s the way the Founding Fathers intended it to work.

You must remember, the men who wrote our constitution were subject to many summary violations of the rights we hold dear today. The English law enforcement officers could simply come into a home at any time, search for whatever evidence they hoped to find, take it, and use it against you. They could arrest you for no reason at all and interrogate you for an extended period in a condition that amounted to torture.

They could actually live in your house, eat your food, sleep in your bed. This was the environment in which the Constitution was written. This is why we have such protections and why you should always assert them. And, of course, why law enforcement should fully support you doing so.

Conclusion

If a law enforcement officer doesn’t like you asserting your legal rights, perhaps that is not such a good job for that person. I find it disturbing that, by and large, law enforcement officers are enraged when a suspect asserts her or his legal rights. I think that’s an issue with the way we perceive the job.

It’s a situation that came about for a number of reasons. Focus on revenue instead of enforcement, the war on drugs, and others. This is not the fault of the law enforcement officer; she or he is simply responding in the way he or she was trained. It is a problem for the United States.

I say to citizens. Assert your rights boldly and proudly. I say to officers, do the same and support and applaud those who do so.

Tom Liberman

Senator Bernie Moreno and Auto Manufacturing

Posted on by
Senator Bernie Moreno

I just read an interesting article in which Senator Bernie Morena from Ohio is interviewed on the subject of auto manufacturing and the role politics has to play in it. I was particularly struck by how right Senator Moreno is in regard to part of his argument and how absolutely wrong he is in the other. Even more interesting is that his two main points are basically doing the same thing, but he hates one and loves the other.

Senator Bernie Moreno and the Electric Car Mandate

Senator Bernie Moreno makes some fantastic points about the federal government involvement in encouraging car manufacturers to make electric cars. His point of view in this regard aligns perfectly with my own Libertarian ideology.

He argues that the government shouldn’t give electric car manufacturers tax money to encourage them to make such cars. He argues that the government shouldn’t be dictating miles per gallon fleet averages. Yes, I call out. Yes, yes, yes! The government should not be involved in these things. Let the car manufactures determine how many electric, hybrid, and gas-powered cars they make. They know their markets better than any politician. Senator Bernie Moreno, count me as a fan.

Senator Bernie Moreno and Tax Breaks for Gas Powered-Cars

In the very next paragraph makes some absolutely terrible points. He wants to give tax breaks to any company that manufactures in the United States. He wants to incentivize energy prices. He wants to prevent foreign car companies from competing in the United States by instituting enormous tariffs on foreign made cars.

The tax breaks Senator Bernie Moreno wants to give car manufacturers is exactly the same thing as giving tax rebates for every electric car sold. It’s the same thing. In both cases the government is encouraging manufactures to behave in a way the politicians think is best.

The problem with tariffs is that it destroys competition. Probably not many of you are Boomers like me but U.S. cars in the 1970s were horrible. You hoped they started in the morning and spent a huge amount of time at the repair shop. Japanese car companies came into the picture with better cars. The result? U.S. car companies started making better cars.

I Trust the America Worker and Manufacturer

Here is my base position. I trust the hard workers right here in the United States. I trust the owners of the big car companies. I trust the relationship between Unions and Executives in that they have a balance of power. Between the workers, executives, and competition we have a fantastic system.

When politicians think they know better and try to bribe one side or the other it destroys the delicate balance that built this great country.

You’re half right Senator Bernie Morena. Now wake up, get the other half right, and stop giving our tax dollars to either side. Let them build cars, that’s their job and they are good at it.

Tom Liberman

Why is every State Referendum a Constitutional Amendment?

Posted on by
Constitutional Amendment

Another round of elections came and went this past Tuesday and, as usual, it struck me how many states are floating referendums that change the constitution of the state in question. I think a lot of people might be confused about the subject and I thought I’d try to clear things up.

Every referendum being a Constitutional Amendment is serious threat to We the People.

The Tenth Amendment

It all boils down to the Constitution of the United States and specifically the Tenth Amendment. The text is quite straight forward. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It’s those last four words that throw a wrench in the plans of all the statists who want to dictate to you how to lead your life. What does it mean? It’s pretty simple. If the Constitution of the United States does not specifically have the power to act on a certain issue, then it is up to the States or the People.

The Word Or

Or. That’s the key word. It’s not and to the people. It’s or to the people. In logic, which the Framers of the Constitution understood, there is an enormous difference between And and Or.

Here’s an example. I was born in St. Louis, Missouri. If I were to say I was born in Springfield and Missouri that statement would be false. With an And statement, both sides must be true before the statement is true. If either side is false, the entire statement is false.

Now, if I were to claim I was born in Springfield or Missouri that statement would be true. With an Or statement, if either clause is true, the entire statement is true.

What does all this Mean?

What the Constitution says is when it comes to powers not specifically stated in the Constitution of the United States, it’s up to the State or the People to decide. The same logic largely applies when it comes to powers for the individual states.

If the state of Missouri passes a law restricting local rules to a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation); that law can be overridden by the People in the form of a local ordinance. So, Missouri says, you cannot restrict CAFO operations. A local community votes to do just that. That Or is a huge part of the equation.

Without a State Constitutional Amendment, the local ordinance overwrites the state law. When the Framers wrote Or they meant it. The law that applies is the one closest to the People. People override State and State overrides the Federal Government, unless it is written into the Constitution. Then it’s the opposite, which is exactly what states are doing.

The Deeper Meaning

The deeper meaning of the state writing a huge number of Constitutional Amendments is that it rips power away from the People. The Framers understood the Federal Government needs to be limited because the people of a state know better the circumstances of their governance. Likewise, the people of a local community know better than the state how to run their government.

Let’s take a quick look at a hot topic these days. The mentioning of homosexuality in schools. It seems perfectly self-evident to me that the people of Orlando, Florida and the people of Baker County, Florida will have different views on this subject.

When the state of Florida tries to dictate to both of those communities how they should treat this subject it steals the rightful authority from those communities.

It’s vitally important to understand if you agree with the right of Florida to restrict Orlando from mentioning homosexuality in school then you also agree with the right of Florida to force mentioning homosexuality in school to Baker County. We give the state power it should not, must not, have.

If Baker County passes a law restricting mentioning such topics in school, they have every right to do so, just as much as Orlando has the right to allow it. This is local control of government and the Framers understood the more the state infringes on local communities, the less local communities want to be part of the Union.

Conclusion

The states are grabbing power from local municipalities at an alarming rate. The state thinks it knows better for Baker County and Orlando both. It doesn’t. The People do.

Tom Liberman

Why Does the Government Advertise Wood Milk?

Posted on by
Wood Milk

There’s a bit of a contretemps involving a satirical commercial starring Aubrey Plaza for something called Wood Milk and I’d like to discuss it.

Essentially, the commercial attempts to discredit plant-based milk products by promoting the fictional milk made from wood. A complaint was filed over the commercial and a quick perusal of comments indicates most people don’t fully understand the complaint at all.

The Dairy Promotion Program

Basically, the advertisement is a product of the Dairy Promotion Program and essentially funded by the United States Government. Way back in 1983, dairy farmers in the United States noticed a decline in the amount of milk being consumed. What did they do? Like any good modern-day crony-capitalist, they went running to the government for help.

The government collects money from dairy farmers and runs advertisements for them. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but that’s largely the gist of it.

Dairy Management Inc

Remember Got Milk? See any generic advertisements for cheese? Seen the Aubrey Plaza advertisement for Wood Milk? That’s all the government, or as they like to say, quasi-government agencies. Dairy Management Inc. runs all of these campaigns using money collected from dairy operations. They run advertisements primarily to elementary and high school students. Got a problem with indoctrination anyone?

The money is collected from dairy organizations, so it’s fine, right? Wrong. The money is collected from dairy organizations who pass that cost along to you and then the DMI strongarms fast-food companies into having more milk and cheese-based items and advertises to promote them, mainly to children.

The Problem with Wood Milk

The problem with the Wood Milk advertisement is that it negatively attacks plant-based milk products. It doesn’t just promote milk. That’s government playing favorites in a blatant fashion. I’ll be honest, my problems with the DMI and the DPP extend far beyond Wood Milk. They are organizations that should not exist.

Government in Advertising

Does the government advertise whiskey? Beer? Soda? It does not and it should not. If any dairy company wants to create an advertisement, that’s well and good, that’s capitalism. If a bunch of dairy companies want to pool their money and run advertisements promoting their product, I don’t have a problem with that either.

It’s the government involvement that sticks in the craw of this Libertarian. Particularly when that advertisement takes aim at a rival product.

I’d be just as upset if the government advertised solar energy over oil and I suspect a lot of people who support the DMI and DPP would as well.

Conclusion

Yes, milk consumption is going down in the United States and has been for decades. It’s not the fault of plant-based milk products, it’s the free market. People like bottled water more than milk. If a product isn’t desired by the public anymore, then the government shouldn’t be involved in propping up the industry for the sake of jobs.

Tom Liberman

Tribal Regalia in Oklahoma

Posted on by
Tribal Regalia

I just read an interesting story about Native Americans being allowed to wear traditional garb during school graduations. The Oklahoma legislature handily overrode Governor Kevin Stitt’s veto on the matter.

The reason I think it’s an interesting topic is the facts of the legislation and veto are largely misrepresented in the article and in public discourse. The legislature is largely being hailed for allowing the wearing of tribal regalia while Governor Stitt is being attacked for wanting to forbid such displays at graduation. This is largely false.

Neither Allowed or Forbidden

It’s important to understand the Oklahoma legislature didn’t simply allow students to wear tribal regalia, they made it illegal for schools to prevent them from doing so. Likewise, it’s useful to understand Governor Stitt isn’t forbidding students from wearing tribal regalia, his veto simply allows local schools to decide for themselves if such adornments to the traditional cap and gown are forbidden.

Libertarian View

It is my opinion Governor Stitt has the right of it. It’s not in the purview of the state of Oklahoma to dictate graduation garb. It’s not a problem for state government and by intruding on this local decision they extend an authoritarian control to the state which it should not have.

As I often say, if you agree with the state unilaterally giving something then you tacitly condone the state taking the same thing away. If the state of Oklahoma can tell a school district they must allow people to wear native regalia at graduation you are granting the state the authority to command students cannot wear such native regalia. This is the problem with government overreach in general.

The Slippery Slope

There is also the slippery slope argument if the state commands Native Americans cannot be stopped from wearing tribal regalia, other organizations will demand the same right. Can a Christian student carry a giant cross as they receive their diploma? Can a Satanist student wear a huge pentagram? Can a devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wear a colander on her or his head? Can a student from France wear the French flag and sing La Marseillaise as they walk?

I’m not a believer in the slippery slope argument. If students of particular organizations want the right to wear such regalia, then each school district should decide on their own if it is allowed. This is the entire point of Governor Stitt in regards to tribal regalia. It must be up to the local school district or college to make that decision, not the state.

Conclusion

States’ Rights should not trump local rights although the judicial system in the United States seems to have taken another view on that subject. We have swung too much toward States’ Rights in this country. States now seem to have an almost totalitarian right to dictate to communities about anything they want, including whether or not a community is allowed to ban declawing cats. The state should not have the right to dictate to local communities any more than the Federal Government has the right to dictate to the states.

Tom Liberman

A Plus Sized Passenger on the Airline

Posted on by
Plus Sized Passenger

There’s an article making the rounds about a plus sized passenger who is unhappy she has to pay for two seats in order to fit into the airline seat. As you might suspect, comments are running pretty heavily against Jae’lynn Chaney. Most people think if she wants a free seat, she should simply lose some weight.

While I don’t disagree with the general sentiment, I do think there’s a larger issue at play here than simply Chaney’s weight.

Airline Seats

As most of you readers probably know, I’m a robust 5’ 7 1/2” tall and 160 lbs. of twisted steel and sex appeal. In other words, I’m short and thin. Airline seats are comfortable enough for me but not by a lot. I don’t have much room to either side and if anyone even moderately larger sits next to me it starts to be a squeeze.

I have tall friends and they aren’t happy with the seat size in airplanes. People are getting bigger and seats are getting smaller. That’s reality. If you’re a plus sized passenger or even just a tall person, it’s not comfortable to sit in them.

We all know the reason seats are shrinking. It’s to get more seats on the plane. More seats. More tickets to sell. At this point, I’d say the average person doesn’t find airplane seats comfortable.

Define a Plus Sized Passenger

This is where things get tricky. How do we define a plus sized passenger? If the average person in the United States cannot comfortably fit in the seat, is that the problem of the passenger or the airline?

If the airlines continue to shrink seats so almost no one can fit comfortably, should we all have to pay for two tickets?

Competition

Certainly, as a Libertarian, I think the airline can make the seats whatever size they want and charge people accordingly. It’d be nice if the government hadn’t subsidized air and car travel to the tune of trillions of dollars and we had competitive rail.

Sadly, that’s not reality. If we want to get from one place in the country to another in a reasonable amount of time, airplanes are pretty much our only choice. If you’re a plus sized passenger, you’re going to be uncomfortable or pay twice the rate.

Conclusion

It’s my opinion air travel has never been nor will ever be a profitable enterprise without government subsidies. We don’t have viable alternatives because the government squeezed passenger rail almost out of existence.

We’re stuck with ever decreasing seat sizes and uncomfortable travel. One day you’ll be the one who no longer fits in the seat.

Conservatives Screw Conservatives with CAFO Regulation

Posted on by
CAFO

I’m happy for the chance to use my Libertarian platform to defend rural farmers against conservative lawmakers in regard to CAFO regulations. Too often in the last few years I’ve found my Libertarian ideals deeply at odds with authoritarian so-called conservatives but this case brings us together. At least some of us.

At issue is legislation making it illegal for local counties to regulate CAFOs. The Missouri Supreme Court recently upheld the Missouri legislature’s law to that affect. The people fighting against this are largely rural farmers and landowners who do not want a CAFO on nearby land and wish to enforce sensible regulations on them.

What is a CAFO?

A CAFO is a concentrated animal feeding operation. Fun name. Disgusting result. Basically, industrial farms house tens of thousands of animals, or even a hundred thousand animals, at a single facility. This is done because it can be extremely profitable for the company doing so. This concentration of animals results in an enormous amount of manure. The manure contains nutrient pollution, pathogens, salts, odorous compounds, antibiotics, pesticide, and hormones.

The Danger of a CAFO

The danger in such a large concentration of animals at a single facility is obvious. The waste product as listed above can easily destroy the local ecosystem and the smell can be unbearable for neighbors. The air quality in the region of a CAFO brings health risks to anyone living nearby.

Then, of course, there is the reasonable concern for the welfare of animals. While they are to be slaughtered, the conditions in which they sometimes live their lives can not unfairly be described as vile.

In addition, these facilities largely drive down the price of meat and make it difficult for local farmers to make a living. Naturally, this is also a good thing in that consumers pay less for their dietary needs.

The State’s Role in a CAFO

It is the state’s obligation to pass laws in regards to CAFO safety. Laws in regard to how much waste a facility can dump, how it manages that waste, and how the animals are treated are in place.

Local Rule

In Missouri we have a Right to Farm. That means local counties can pass rules regarding how farming is in done in their region. Small farmers, generally conservative in their political beliefs, do not like having a CAFO in the region. This aligns them with environmentalists and animal rights activists, generally considered liberal groups.

The Missouri legislatures passed a law which makes it illegal for local counties to make any regulation on a CAFO stricter than the state’s own laws.

Naturally, the local farmers weren’t too happy about the state coming in and telling them what they can and cannot do. I agree wholeheartedly. Keep in mind I also agree when it comes to transgender issues or when the school year starts. This is where my Libertarian philosophy doesn’t run into any conflict. I think the local community has every right to pass regulations regarding things not protected in the Constitution of the United States.

If the local community wants to pass rules on a CAFO or a drag-show, it’s absolutely their constitutional right to do so. The state cannot, in my opinion, restrict this right. The Missouri Supreme Court thinks differently. They think the state can make rules for the country or municipality. This implies that state leaders know better than local leaders what the people of the region desire.

Conclusion

If the people of St. Louis City have no desire to outlaw drag shows then the state should have no power to overrule them. Likewise, if a rural community wants to restrict how a CAFO goes about their business, the state should not be able to overrule them.

If you are for one of those things but against the other, then you are neither a conservative or a liberal. I don’t know what you are, but I do know you’re not a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Predatory Loans in Utah

Posted on by
Predatory Loans

I just read an interesting article about how a loosely regulated market allows for what can only be described as predatory loans in Utah. It’s an interesting question for me because the main rational behind allowing loans with an interest rate of up to 200% is aligned with a Libertarian ideology.

Basically, predatory loans in Utah are allowed because the legislature in that state doesn’t put a legal cap on the highest interest rate allowed. Most states do so and the Federal Government mandates active-duty service members, but no one else, cannot be charged more than 36%.

Are they Predatory Loans?

Let’s dispense with this question right away. The loans are structured in a way to trap low-income borrowers into paying back far more than they took out. The loans are absolutely predatory. Most of them come with a 90-day stipulation that if you pay it back in that amount of time the higher interest rate doesn’t apply.

They are largely taken by people in desperate situations, often an unexpected car repair. Without a car the borrower will lose their job. Without a job …. Anyway, the design is predatory, that much is certain.

The Service of the Loan

While the loans are certainly predatory, the people who take them are in desperate need and cannot get a loan legally any other way. They generally have poor credit ratings and cannot get a loan from a bank that doesn’t offer such a high interest rate. This because most states regulate an interest cap.

Banks know that such loans have a high default rate. In order to make up for that default rate, a crazy-high interest rate is charged for those that cannot repay immediately.

The people who take these loans are the same people who end up owing money to extra-legal lending sources and payday loan companies.

Different than Banks and the Government?

I’ve written about how the government itself operates like a loan-shark with ridiculous fees and escalating fines for late payments. I’ve also talked about how the government and private industry intentionally created the student loan situation in which we find ourselves.

The government intentionally bankrupted the United States Postal service largely at the behest of banks in order to take out massive loans with the never-ending interest payments.

Financial Ruin of Unpaid Predatory Loans

One of the interesting things about loans is if a bank gives issues too many that default, the bank itself goes out of business. The bank doesn’t have a pile of cash sitting in the vault. They take the money you give them in interest payments and loan it to others. If enough others fail to pay, the bank gets into trouble. Some may remember the recent housing crisis. The student loan crisis we currently face. These are directly related to too many bad loans resulting in defaults.

This is why the Utah banks in question don’t do the majority of their business in such loans. It’s a dangerous game to play.

Is Utah in the Wrong?

Is Utah wrong to allow banks to charge up to 200% interest rates for these types of loans? If the banks do not provide this service, will extra-legal loan-sharks step in? The government, with their long record of predatory behavior, is hardly an institution I trust to rein in this practice.

There is real damage, of course. A certain percentage of those who take out the loans cannot pay them back in 90 days and end up with unsustainable payments. Even if people stop paying and incur some court-ordered lesser payment plan, they suffer financial difficulties for a long time if not the rest of their lives.

Conclusion

Ok, Tom. The loans are predatory and people will suffer. But you don’t think regulating them will help. Do you have anything useful to say or was this just an intellectual exercise?

Good question. I think some problems just don’t have solutions. As long as people are poor and need money, such loans will exist, legal or illegal. It’d be nice if we didn’t have poor people. If there was a way to provide for all people in need, whether they deserve it or not, whether they’ve earned it or not. There currently is not such a system in place.

I guess my only real point here is to beware of what appears to be a simple solution to a complex problem. It can make things worse rather than better.

Tom Liberman

Gambling is a Problem for a Libertarian

Posted on by
Gambling

I’ve written on the topic of gambling numerous times over the years and generally from the perspective of a Libertarian. That is to say, it’s your money and how you choose to spend it is up to you.

That being said, I’ve seen the destructive potential inherent in gambling from when I worked in the golf industry. Even then I thought the problem so wide-spread and influential on young golfers that I made a point not to gamble just to be a possible role-model.

Gambling in the United States is now easily accessible to just about everyone. Casinos are everywhere. Video games have Loot Boxes. Smart phones give access to betting games at all times of the day and night. Problem Gambling is an incredibly destructive addiction and, with greater access to gambling, more people are affected.

What’s a Libertarian to say about Gambling?

In various blogs on the subject my position is fairly clear. The government should not be in the business of enforcing gambling bans and putting people in prison for gambling. If people want to gamble, they will find a way and the prohibitions only create black markets and misery.

I also think government shouldn’t be facilitating gambling. Government should tax gambling houses in the same way it collects revenue from any other store. The rational being the government provides roads, utilities, and other things necessary for the operation of the store. The only special tax on gambling should be used to fund treatment facilities.

State run lotteries are antithetical to my understanding of how government should operate. They should not exist.

Problem Gambling

The reason I’m writing this article is the increase in problem gambling. It’s a serious problem. Gambling addiction is real and it destroys lives. The greater access we have to gambling, the more lives are destroyed.

Prior to 1979, gambling was largely in the hands of the states and quite restricted. With the advent of Native American Gaming, that all changed. Soon lotteries followed, video poker, sports gambling, and more.

As a child, I remember reading the raffle games rules on the back of cereal boxes. Not valid in Missouri was often in the footer text. Such games were illegal in my state. Not anymore, not by a long-shot.

I’m not going to try to pretend because I’m a Libertarian and support legal gambling that it’s all wine and roses. It’s not. It’s a big problem and growing fast. It’s likely you know a problem gambler, I’ve known a few over the years.

What’s a Libertarian to do?

Where does that leave me? Should I change my mind and support prohibitions on gambling? Can I just pretend the people who suffer terribly in part because I advocated for gambling don’t exist? That their problems are not my fault, not my business?

My position is not simple or easy. As I’ve mentioned before, I think Critical Thinking skills must be taught to children starting at the earliest levels of education and reinforced every year thereafter. These lessons must include the basic principles of gambling. How it affects the human mind, the methods used to entice gamblers.

Biology classes should discuss the release of Serotonin and Dopamine into the human brain and why some people are much more likely to become addicts.

Treatment

Facilities for treating gambling addiction are on the rise, as can be expected, and that’s a good thing. As I mentioned above, I don’t think it unreasonable to have added taxes on gambling to fund these places.

Conclusion

I don’t think banning gambling works and I’m strongly opposed to the government funding itself from gambling. Banning gambling means those who are capable of doing it responsibly cannot do something they enjoy.

The only real solution is not a complete solution at all. It relies on educating people to the potential dangers, giving them the information they need, and then trusting those individuals to make good decisions.

Will this solve problem gambling? No. People will still make bad decisions. Brain chemistry will still bring on addictions. People will suffer and partially because I advocate legal gambling. I bear some responsibility for this enormous problem and that’s why I say gambling is a problem for a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

The Great Microsoft Solitaire Kerfuffle

Posted on by
Microsoft Solitaire

Everyday Microsoft Solitaire has a competition. It can be anything from a quick five match free cell with easy and medium games to a massive thirty game adventure with Klondike, Spider, Free Cell, Pyramid, and Tri Peaks with multiple expert games. Hundreds of thousands of players compete each day.

There are no rewards but time spent playing each game is tracked and players are ranked in a local group of fifty and overall, against all competitors. There are little ribbons for finishing in the top three of your group and a special Red Room where the top 100 players in an event are displayed.

I belong to a Facebook Group dedicated largely to playing in these tournaments, listing performances, talking about the games, etc. We’ve had a major kerfuffle and it’s an interesting one, at least I think so.

Cheating in Microsoft Solitaire

As you might expect, there is cheating. People cheat in a variety of ways. The main way of cheating is simply to have multiple accounts so you can practice the game on one account and then play it through more quickly on your main account.

Some people take this to the extreme; recording a successful playthrough with software and then replaying all the moves in just a few seconds on their main account. As a quick example, I finished the recent Free Cell mini tournament of three easy and two medium games in 4:09 and won my group by over a minute. I’m a bit of a Free Cell fanatic.

The Red Room first place at this moment is 1:35 with over 115,000 people playing so far. This time is, naturally, impossible without computer aided play and will be bettered as the day goes on and more people use this method. I’ve seen the top finisher with a time below ten seconds for the entire event.

To get away from all the toxicity on the main Facebook Solitaire page where these cheaters are often unpleasant, the exclusive little solitaire Facebook group to which I belong was created.

Are you Going to get to the Point Soon, Tom?

Thank you for being patient as I’m finally at the crux of today’s article. There is cheating going on in my group. Horrors! The differentiating factor is the cheater is using computer software. People are up in arms. Should we banish the cheater? Should we give the cheater another chance? Biblical references are being tossed around. People are angry.

Now, to let you in on a little secret; other people in the group play with multiple accounts and practice before playing on their main account. Some simply use the secondary account to study the board for a period of time figuring out best play in their minds before starting on their main account. Some practice multiple times to ingrain the quickest way to finish.

So, who is cheating really? Are only the people using specialized software cheating? Is anyone with a second, or third and fourth account, cheating?

Who is the Cheater in Microsoft Solitaire and Why do We care?

For me, there are no rules, so no one is cheating. There isn’t an official Microsoft Solitaire rules committee that makes decisions and disqualifies people who don’t follow the non-existent rules. I’m well aware people in my group don’t play the way I play. Generally, I open up Microsoft Solitaire after I get back from the gym in the morning, start the tournament, and play through each game in order. I don’t prepare, I don’t examine, I play. Am I the Pure Player? The Good Guy? The Fairness Adjudicator?

Not really, it’s just how I play. How other people play is their own business. I recognize my time is never going to be faster than those who play differently than me. I don’t worry about comparing my time with them or anyone for that matter. I get satisfaction from playing my best. I get frustrated when I play badly.

If someone in my group wants to use computer assist to get incredibly fast times, that’s their business. Now, does it annoy me slightly when he or she post all her or his fast times and brags about it? Sure. I’m not Perfect Tommy yet, but I’m working on it.

Conclusion

I don’t want to come off as sanctimonious here. If my fellow Solitaire enthusiasts get angry at the “cheating”, then that’s cool too. If they want to banish the cheater then I won’t stand in their way. I’ve just gotten to a point in life when people do things that don’t materially affect me, I just don’t care so much.

It seems to me this caring about how other people conduct their lives is out-of-control, particularly here in the United States. It’s not just Microsoft Solitaire. It’s a lot of things. I’m not going to delve deeply into all that today, but the idea is one of the reasons I identify as a Libertarian.

As Boy in the police stations advises: Your problem is you. You ought to spend a little more time dealing with yourself and a little less time worrying about what your brother does.

Tom Liberman

The Government funds itself like a Loan Shark

Posted on by
Loan Shark

I just read an interesting article about five million dollars in late fees that sums up why the government is largely nothing more than a mobbed-up loan shark, bleeding citizens for all their money. In Branson, Missouri, there are four customers who have an outstanding sewage bill of $19,000. With the late fee tacked on top of this, they now owe over five million dollars.

The government has no incentive to make you pay your bills, they want you to rack up fees. It’s not only for utilities, as in the story in question, but it’s driving the Student Loan Crisis. It’s the main reason law enforcement issues as many fines as possible. It’s rampant in private business as well. It largely caused the housing bubble crisis.

How a Loan Shark makes Money

It’s pretty easy to be a loan shark and the methodology isn’t difficult to understand. Basically, get someone to owe you money for whatever reason. Then allow them to pay in installments with an interest fee tacked on. Then simply let your client pay the minimum amount so that the principle never gets paid down.

This is called a predatory loan and the reason loan sharks used them is because government, banks, and established businesses, at one point, refused to loan to someone who could not eventually pay it back. Times have changed.

Envy of the Loan Shark

In modern times the government, in the form of utilities, city fees, penalties, traffic and parking violations, student loans, licensing, and anything else they can think of; uses the loan shark methodology. Why? Because it works.

Sure, a lot of your loans will never be repaid but that’s the cost of doing business and business is booming. Once you’ve bled your mark for more than the principle loaned it’s all gravy at that point. This is how government survives. Penalties, over-due fees, escalating and leading you to bankruptcy. At the end of it all, in the case of this article, they simple turn off your water, having collected far more than was owed. Win!

The Causes

The cause of all this is complicated to be sure but a big part of it is increasing government expenditures largely related to infrastructure and lowering of taxes as a political win. The government simply doesn’t have enough revenue from taxes to pay their bills. Government’s innovative solution was to become a loan shark. They might claim there is a surplus, as here in my home state of Missouri, but this is just an excuse to lower principle taxes for wealthy people, while sticking it to poor people with increased fees.

The Solution

Good luck, there isn’t a solution. Almost every level of government, local, state, and federal; is leveraged up to their ears in loans. Just keeping up with infrastructure maintenance takes up the entire yearly budget. It is never going to be able to pay back the principle. Government takes money from citizens to pay off their own masters, the banks.

Meanwhile, they create misery for an increasing percentage of the population that lives month to month. Is it any wonder people are angry? Their anger is, of course, completely misdirected. They want to blame the politicians on the other side of the aisle.

The job of government is to improve the lives of citizens. Our government has failed.

Tom Liberman

Ideology over Reality and the Great Depression

Posted on by
Ideology over Reality

A recent Facebook spat of mine involving the Great Depression reminded me of the concept of ideology over reality. It’s not a big deal but it did strike me as something to discuss in a blog.

Basically, in a reply to one of my posts, a fellow with absolute certainty posited that the Great Depression would have lasted only a few months but President Franklin Roosevelt intentionally extended it to promote a socialist ideology.

It’s also important to understand my original reply had nothing to do with Roosevelt or the Great Depression. It was merely a comment about the Federal Reserve.

The Simple Problem

The simple problem with the stated post is that Roosevelt took office some three years after the Great Depression started. This is ideology over reality.

Do I think the person who made the statement is lying? No, I don’t. I think that person absolutely believes what they are saying. That person likely heard it from some factually unsound individual and believed it because it fit his world view. I didn’t even bother replying because there is just no point. When ideology over reality takes over a mind, for many people it seems almost impossible to go back.

The Original Thread

The original post I commented on involved a historical article about Andrew Jackson and his veto of the Second Bank of the United States. Someone else commented that between then and the establishment of the Federal Reserve, there were a series of economic panics and that, perhaps, Jackson’s veto, had drawbacks.

Ideology over Reality

In any case, that’s not really the point of my blog today. I understand Confirmation Bias and I’ve written about it before. Ideology over reality is becoming disturbing. The reply about the Great Depression was one of several I received on the issue. Not a single reply addressed my point in any way. They all spoke about nebulously related concepts, topics that met with the ideology of the person writing.

Conclusion

A growing number of people seem to just not care about reality. Ideology is first, last, and only. Facts simply don’t matter. Reality is irrelevant. What’s important is simple ideology. My ideology is right. Everything about it is right. There is no room for debate. There are no complex topics. It’s all simple, straightforward, easy. I’m smart, you’re stupid. Your way will lead to my destruction and I must stop you by any means possible.

Anyone who agrees with my ideology is always right. Anyone who disagrees with my ideology is always wrong. When a threshold percent of the population succumbs to this way of thinking, we can no longer coexist with one another in a peaceful way. We haven’t reached that threshold yet. Hopefully, we never will.

Think logically, not ideologically.

Tom Liberman

Butt Hurt Liberal Politicians Punish Meanie Disney

Posted on by
Liberal Politicians

There’s a small story in the news about the liberal politicians of Florida using their power to punish a corporation for saying mean things about a law they passed. These liberal politicians think it’s the job of government to punish anyone who dares criticize their policies.

In this case a private company, Disney, in a press release criticized some legislation promoted by Governor Ron DeSantis. Little Rwonny was so butt hurt by this criticism that he went crying to his mommy for his binky and a sippy cup of warm milk. Sadly, it was not forthcoming so he set out to use his political power to punish those meanies at Disney.

Only Big Government Liberal Politicians Left

Little Rwonny and his crying liberal politician buddies exactly sum up the condition of politics in the United States of America. As long as it’s your policies being promulgated by an overreaching government, every private citizen must line up in absolute agreement. How dare anyone dare disagree with me, shouted widdle Rwonny as he pouted and threatened to hold his breath. I gonna show them!

Such government overreach is not even questioned in this day and age. It doesn’t matter if it’s democrats mandating a private business must force customers to wear masks or a republican demanding a business cannot do so. It’s all one side of the coin.

The other side of the coin is Libertarian. A business, an individual, a human being can disagree with politicians without fear of repercussions. They have every right to speak their mind without an overreaching, uber-liberal, government threatening their livelihood if they don’t get in line.

Get out of Business

No tax breaks! Stop incentives. No special statuses. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Get government out of our private lives. I want to smoke some weed, wear a mask, fire some guns, and the government shouldn’t have any say in it.

We have an entire profession, lobbyists, built around bribing politicians with fancy dinners and gifts in order to get them to pass laws favorable to my business. Crony Capitalism isn’t rampant, it’s the de-facto form of business we have in this country.

Government officials decide who succeeds and who fails. Our current crop of politicians are completely ingrained in this ideology. They have no idea all that remains is the difference between liberal politicians and uber-liberal politicians.

Authoritarian Citizens

The supporters of both the Republican and Democratic party cheer with wild abandon when government punishes their foes. Yay! That’s awesome they cheer and pat each other on the back. Hopefully they’ll make it legal to shoot my opponents soon!

Then, as soon as the exact same thing happens in a state controlled by the opposite political party they start whining and crying like a two-year old denied access to the chemicals under the sink by a reasonable parent. Wah! So mean. They are mean. I don’t like them. It’s not fair. Boo-hoo. Sob, weep, wail, they are so mean!

Conclusion

You’re all liberals who think it’s the job of government to punish your enemies. Keep it up, destroy the grand experiment of the founding fathers. You deserve what you get.

Tom Liberman

Kitchen Set for Young Boy Causes Controversy

Posted on by
Kitchen Set

An interesting story in the news involves an uncle giving his nephew a fancy kitchen set for his birthday. Apparently, the parents of the lad are quite upset with the gift. They think it’s inappropriate for a boy to get a kitchen set as a present.

Now, we do have to take Reddit posts with a grain of salt. It’s quite possible the person making the post is just trying to stir up trouble. Still, I think it’s a situation worth examining from a Libertarian point of view. Let’s go!

Parental Rights

For a Libertarian it comes down to Parental Rights. There’s a lot in the news about Parental Rights and, as usual, there is no consistency in the established parties. When it comes to math questions it seems the Republicans are all about Parental Rights and Democrats are against them. When it comes to certain medical procedures then it’s completely reversed. Republican’s think the state knows better for the child than the parents while Democrats think, rightly so, the parents must be the ones in charge of such decisions.

Now, in this case, it’s pretty simple from a Libertarian perspective. The parents have every right to restrict the type of gift their child receives. If they think a kitchen set is an inappropriate gift then they can inform the uncle to please gift toy soldiers to the lad in the future. Save the kitchen set for daughters, if there ever are any.

Boys Cook

Everyone is up in arms because the chef industry is dominated by men. The article states almost 75% of all professional chefs are men. It’s a good job and I’m quite proud and happy to say my nephew owns and operates a restaurant. You go, James!

The fact the parents don’t want their son to play with a kitchen set makes the parents morons. This is factually true and I agree wholeheartedly, they are idiots. The uncle is absolutely in the right in giving the gift as long as he didn’t know about the parents’ preferences. It’s a great gift for a young man or woman. I like to eat. I love good food. The more chefs in the world the better. You go, uncle!

Idiot Parents are Still Parents

The parents are living a delusional lie and trying to limit their son. Horrific. I hope the boy overcomes their miserable stereotypes and gender biases and becomes whatever he wants to be, a chef if that’s his passion. Perhaps the uncle can give him an example by cooking a delightful meal whenever the family visits. Make a point of being in the kitchen and creating great food for everyone to enjoy.

That being said, the parents are the parents. They have every right to raise their child the way they see fit, barring something illegal. It’s not illegal to deny your male child a kitchen set, just stupid.

Conclusion

Much as we’d like to everyone to agree with us, be it a math problem or a medical procedure, sometimes parents are stupid. Sometimes people are stupid. It’s not up to the government to fix stupidity. Freedom is all about allowing people to do as they want, within reasonable boundaries including not causing harm. Even if such behavior is self-destructive or incredibly stupid. Even if such behavior negatively affects a child, sad to say.

Tom Liberman

Can you Ban your Cake and Eat it Too?

Posted on by
Cake

I just read an interesting article about a restaurant that charges a fee to bring your own cake. It’s tearing up the internet and it gives me a chance to focus on my Libertarian ideology for the first time in a while.

The question is fairly basic. A restaurant doesn’t want you bringing your own cake, food, or beverages to consume. Almost all restaurants have a corkage fee for bringing in your own wine and no one really has a problem with this. The fee in question at the unnamed London restaurant was £10 per person at the table. It was a birthday celebration with a dozen people and I’ll leave the math to you.

In any case, my question today is if the fee is justified.

£120 for a Cake

The sticking point largely seems to be the high price for the cake. Most people seem to agree that some fee is in order but a great deal of debate on the amount is raging. The price does seem rather high to me but, that being said, it is replacing twelve desserts. I can easily see each dessert running around that individual price.

In other words, I absolutely see both sides of the argument. I do understand the restaurant is out the price of all those desserts but, on the other hand, they’ve made a tidy profit on the rest of the dinner. A table of twelve at a celebration is certainly going to eat a lot of food with appetizers, mains, and drinks. Is it worth it to alienate good customers with such a policy?

The Internet is Divided

Based on the comments I read, the internet seems fairly divided on the topic. I certainly understand both points of view as I mentioned. However, this is where my Libertarian ideology turns such conundrums from difficult to simple.

While most of the commenters put forward various arguments in support of the restaurant and against it, my answer is easy and came to me even before I finished the article. I’m sure most of you loyal readers already know exactly what I’m going to write.

The Libertarian Cake Answer

The restaurant is well within their rights to charge an extra fee for bringing a cake onto the premises and substituting it for desserts ordered on site. The customer is equally within their rights to resent the fee and refuse to eat at the restaurant again, cake or not.

That’s where life gets pretty simple for a Libertarian. It’s clearly not a situation in which the government should intervene although I suspect a bi-partisan panel of “conservatives” and “liberals” will introduce legislation to ban charges for bringing your own cake. They will tout the legislation as common sense and good for the children who get to eat the cake. Afterall, we must protect the children!

Conclusion

Putting aside the sarcasm for a moment, though it pains me; if the restaurant wants to charge whatever amount for bringing your own cake, that’s their business. If the customers decide they’d rather eat somewhere else, that’s their prerogative as well.

That is all. Continue with your daily lives and don’t forget to stop and taste the cake.

Tom Liberman

In Upset Evil Empire Defeats JEDI

Posted on by
JEDI

What is JEDI

The Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI, was a contract between the Department of Defense and Microsoft to modernize Information Technology. Ten billion dollars in taxpayer funds were to pay for this update which the DoD considers an absolute necessity.

It came into effect back in 2019 when Microsoft won the contract over rival Amazon. The contract is now null and void as the DoD initiated contract termination procedures and Microsoft supports the decision.

Why was JEDI Cancelled

Back when the contract was awarded, the President of the United States publicly stated his preference that it be awarded to Microsoft instead of Amazon because the executive considered the CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, a political enemy.

An investigation by the Pentagon’s inspector general provided no clarity. A number of high-ranking White House officials refused to cooperate. Now, twenty months later, the contract is dead and the process must begin again.

Twenty Months Lost

There are a number of factors to consider in this entire mess. Libertarian ideology underlies almost every one of them.

Business must not be tied up in politics. I admit that bridge is so far behind us we’d need the Hubble Space Telescope to find a time when politicians weren’t meddling. This fact doesn’t stop me from tilting against that particular windmill. Why on earth is the President of the United States, a United States Senator, a United States Congressman, or any of their political appointees making any statements or decision in regards to a project like JEDI?

I understand the Department of Defense comes under the purview of said politicians but business done by that entity does not, at least in my opinion. Because President Trump made clear conflict of interest statements in regard to the contract, it doesn’t even really matter if his staff interfered or not. Amazon has a case.

Imagine you are running a business with a large bid at stake with a government agency. Your local politician states she or he wants your competitor to get the contract. It’s clear you’d kick up a fuss and plunk down more money for the next election cycle. Yet another product of the folly that is the current course of the United States.

The fingerprint of politicians litters every decision made these days and our military is suffering because of it. We’ve got a trio of Zumwalt Class destroyers that cost over $22 billion and doesn’t have a main gun. The United Army told Congress they didn’t need any more Abrams tanks but got them anyway. I won’t even talk about the F35.

Meanwhile, soldiers can’t get clean water through their home plumbing right here in the United States. Veterans wait in line at the Veterans Administration to get medical care.

Many, if not all, of these problems come back to politicians with no expertise or even basic knowledge interfering in decisions.

Conclusion

I don’t care if you’re a Trump fan or you hate him. Your security is at risk because Trump couldn’t keep his big mouth shut. We should be twenty months into the upgrade by now, whether by Amazon or Microsoft. That’s the problem with politicians interfering in business decisions.

There was a time when Republicans and Libertarians aligned on this issue, no more. We few stand alone against a juggernaut of politicians and their supporters who seem to be rushing, arms wide open, with smiles on their faces, toward despotism.

The people of the United States, much as it pains me to say, seem to want one person, with no understanding of the issue at hand, to make all the decisions regarding said issue.

The Bleating of a Conservative about Taxes Funding Our Communities

Posted on by
Taxes Funding Our Communities

The other day on Social Media one of my self-proclaimed Conservative friends posted a missive about taxes funding our communities. After I cleaned the vomit from my mouth, I decided to write an article about why this is utter insanity rather than berate said bleating Republican in a scathing reply.

You see, loyal readers, my social media friend can certainly call himself a Conservative but his attitude about taxes funding our communities shows his true colors as nothing more than an odious Republican who long ago gave up on all but the word Conservative.

The post in question was in regards to a mall that had long ago lost most of their stores through natural economic forces, a process I discuss in other blogs. The space was being used as a sporting venue for citizens to play games. My self-proclaimed Conservative friend wrote: It is a frequent re-purpose but sad for the economy. The drop in property value, lower property taxes, and less sales taxes to fund our communities.

The mere idea that it should be taxes funding our communities, let alone the delusion they are actually funding our communities is the worst sort of liberalism. Taxes do not fund our communities. They are collected by the government in order to provide services for the citizens. The community funds the government not the other way around.

Government does not build the roads. Roads, pipes, electric lines, green spaces, security, and fire protection is built because of our needs. Yes, the government uses funds collected through taxes to pay construction companies, police officers, and others but that is not funding our communities that is merely streamlining from a central point.

Let me illustrate with the example of the original social media post. My self-proclaimed conservative friend laments the loss of tax revenue from giant malls that no one has an interest in going to anymore. Doesn’t that say it all. Darn it, I can’t steal your money to prop up a business endeavor no one wants while paying myself a hefty salary to do so. Why should we pay taxes for utilities, roads, parking lots, emergency services, and a myriad of other things that go to a place no one uses anymore? Hint, we shouldn’t.

That’s the misguided role of government in a declining nation. To prop itself up with money stolen from citizens for things they don’t even want and certainly don’t need.

We want roads that go places useful to us. When a sales tax isn’t collected because no one is going to the store, that’s not a bad thing. That’s not a loss to the community. It’s a natural economic impact and the idea government is responsible for that store in the first place is misguided at the least. We were responsible for the store’s existence and now we don’t need it anymore. Good riddance.

It’s ass-backwards what my so-called Conservative friend advocates. It is not taxes funding our communities. It is our communities funding government and we should only fund what we need, not its bloated and endlessly empty belly.

Tom Liberman

Cancel Culture Collides with Gina Carano

Posted on by
Cancel Culture

Oh what a tangled Cancel Culture we weave when we try to cancel a person on the opposite side of the debate. The Cancel Culture insanity is in full view in the Gina Carano situation which I will avoid detailing because in the immortal words of Tripper; It just doesn’t matter.

Carano was fired from her show because the producers didn’t like something she said. Those who like what she said now want to cancel Disney+.

But, but, but they started it! Remember Dixie Chicks? No, no, it didn’t really start until Confederate Statues! You’re the one trying to cancel me! No, I’m not! You’re trying to cancel me!

Let me be clear. I hate each and every one of you in my own, special, Libertarian way. You’re all part of the Cancel Culture and the more rage you toss at the other side, the more you reveal your own fervor in that regard. You love the Cancel Culture. You adore it. You worship it. You eagerly embrace it when the person being canceled is on the other side of the political spectrum. Oh, how you wail and weep against it when someone with your point of view is being canceled.

First off, you miserable cretins, no one is being canceled. No one! Decisions in regards to a statue or an actor are being made. The free market is determining what networks survive.

Everyone is perfectly capable of deciding if they want to watch the Mandalorian for themselves. It becomes Cancel Culture when you try to orchestrate a movement against an actor on the show or the network that produces the show. You are the Cancel Culture, if you weren’t, you’d stop watching the Mandalorian or cancel your Disney+ without mouthing off about it all over Social Media in a desperate attempt to get more views and destroy those with whom you disagree.

Did I mention I hate you all? Because if I haven’t, I’d like to reiterate it here. I’m quite clear about my feelings on this subject. However, please continue to go about your business canceling everyone. That’s your own prerogative. I’ll choose if I want to continue to follow your social media or relegate you to the ignore bin, most of you are there already, because, I hate you. In case there is some confusion in that regard.

Now, I’m going to watch some chess.

Tom Liberman

When you Throw the Constitution out the Window

Posted on by
Throw the Constitution out the Window

What happens when you throw the Constitution out the window? It’s a fair question these days because both Republican and Democrats, about 95% of all voters in the country, are fully on board with ignoring that document whenever they find it convenient.

Our sordid tale didn’t start with one president or one particular Executive Order but it escalated to new heights under President Trump and his endless national emergencies and is continuing in that direction under President Biden.

One example of this is the arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A few years back Saudi Arabia blew up a busload of school children in Yemen and our brilliant members of Congress thought to themselves; hey, why exactly are we selling Saudi Arabia the means and giving them the training required to do this? So, when the sale of arms to that country came up, the members of Congress voted against it. Done deal, right? I mean the Constitution of the United States is clear. Purse strings equal Congress.

Oh, how wrong you were. President Trump simply said screw Congress. It’s a national emergency, I can do whatever I want; here you go Saudis have it, kill as many school children in Yemen as you want, it’ll all be good.

Now President Biden has said, now wait a second, I might not want to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates so I’m putting those sales on hold. Well, sorry to say, self-righteous Democrats, that’s not within his authority either.

I’ve written a number of articles that touch on the idea Congress and the President seem quite happy to throw the constitution out the window when it serves their purposes. The expansion of executive power, whether or not government should control our energy policies, and if we should be involved in the idea of economic sanctions at all.

All of these thoughts swirl around the fact we largely allow government officials to do whatever they want and whenever they want; because we agree with the policies so enacted. The problem, of course, is the politicians aren’t always the ones for whom we voted. Sometimes the other party comes into office and uses these powers in ways we don’t like. Oh, how we cry then.

The underlying problem is that no one cares. Everyone is happy, eventually, when Congress and the Executive Branch does whatever they want without any regard for the Constitution of the United States. Sure, you don’t like Biden cancelling the contract, sure you didn’t like Trump making the contract, but by supporting either, you are supporting both, not that you seem capable of thinking that broadly on the topic.

Virtually every unconstitutional executive order Biden signs is simply counteracting unconstitutional executive orders signed by Trump.

What happens when you throw the Constitution out the window? Dictators come into power. The Founding Fathers? They knew it and cared deeply about preventing it. You know it also; you just don’t care.

Tom Liberman