Category Archives: Libertarian

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

Who is the Protagonist of Pretty Woman?

Posted on by
Pretty Woman

Whilst clicking my way through channels the other day I flicked past Pretty Woman and it got me thinking about the movie. Who is the protagonist is the question I ask myself as a Boomer. I am no longer the thirty-something year old infatuated with Laura San Giacomo.

I think it’s an interesting question because the obvious answer is Vivian, played by Julia Roberts. It is, after all, her story. She has the arc. Doesn’t she?

Edward has the Character Arc

The thing is, Vivian doesn’t really change much or at all. She’s the hooker with a heart of gold. She’s a little rough around the edges perhaps but she is clearly educated, intelligent, and capable. She starts that way and she finishes that way.

Edward, on the other hand, changes dramatically. He starts the movie as a corporate raider with no qualms about staging a leveraged buyout of Morse Industries, a shipbuilding company run by Jim Morse along with his grandson, David.

Early Edward is the villain of the movie. The corporate raider. The dismantler of capitalism. His interactions with Jim, David, and Vivian change him. That’s his arc. By the end of the movie, he is joining Morse Industries as a partner. He will build ships with the company rather than dismantling it and selling it off for profit.

We like the finished Edward. He’s the hero. He’s changed. He has an arc.

Edward, Jim, and Capitalism

In thinking about Edward and his arc in Pretty Woman, my thoughts turned to leveraged buyouts, private equity, and capitalism.

It seems to me that, generally, we now admire beginning Edward far more than finished Edward. Make as much money as possible for yourself and your shareholders.

Edward contrasts dramatically with old-school Jim Morse. Jim owns a company but isn’t interested in squeezing the maximum profit from it. He wants to build big, beautiful ships. Ships that serve our country, yards that employ people. His goal is to create, employ, and, of course make money. He’s a wealthy industrialist. His company is successful but not as profitable as it could be and thus a target for Edward and his leveraged buyout.

A Moment about Private Equity

I’m no naïve do-gooder who thinks Private Equity firms and leveraged buyouts have no place in capitalism. They are valuable tools to keep companies in line. They play a useful role in ending bloated companies with dozens of board members and executives earning enormous salaries, siphoning off all the profits. Such companies deserve their fate.

The problem is when the Edwards of the world can leverage a buyout of a largely successful company that isn’t squeezing maximum profits. We instinctively admire Jim Morse and his grandson. They are embodiment of the best parts of capitalism.

Build a great product, provide a useful service, employ hard-working people at a fair wage. That’s the end-result of healthy capitalism. We hate early Edward in Pretty Woman.

Conclusion

It’s a complicated problem and not easily solved. I do think the ability to borrow enormous sums and immediately declare bankruptcy and not pay them back if things go wrong is a big part of the problem. These days, the darling of the capitalistic world is early Edward. We should know better.

Tom Liberman

Randall Emmett Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry

Posted on by
Randall Emmett and the Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry

I just read a fascinating story from the Los Angeles Times about how states are conned in the Taxpayer funded movie industry. Taxpayer funded movie industry, you rightly ask? I’m afraid so. How is that possible, you ask? Because we live in a free money, crony-capitalism country.

Basically, fly-by-night movie companies come to your state and film low-budget movies with aging name stars and get almost the entire thing paid for with tax dollars. From what I can tell, it’s largely a Ponzi scheme with the next state in line paying the overdue bills from the previous production. Let’s get into it.

Randall Emmett is Running the Show

Who is Randall Emmett? A movie producer who was accused of various sexual transgressions on his movie sets and in his personal life. This did not stop him from producing movies. He just started up a new production company making low-budget movies.

How is this a Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry?

The scheme is relatively simple. Many states are eager to have a movie made in their confines. They use Taxpayer money to “reimburse” film-makers who shoot in their states. The film-maker usually makes various promises about how long the shoot will take, where, and how many jobs it will create. The usual business mantra for fleecing states of Taxpayer money.

In any case, they film the movie on a shoe-string budget paying a high-profile, but usually late in his career actor, seven figure salaries for a day or two of shooting. They then lollygag on payments to the rest of people involved, including the law enforcement teams assigned to the set.

Then it’s off to a new state, with new promises, a few million dollars to pay off the old debts and a new actor. Rinse repeat. The movies themselves are largely trash although they probably generate enough money to make the entire enterprise profitable as long as there is another gullible governor lined up to dish out your money.

Scummy?

You bet. This is the world we live in. It’s easier to make a profit with Taxpayer funds and a bad movie than it is to produce a quality product.

The obvious problem here is that states are willing to dispense money to businesses on the promise of new movies, new factories, new jobs, etc. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The state and the corporations need to be separate for the health of both.

There should be no tax-breaks, no reimbursements, and no incentives of any kind to conduct business in a particular state or municipality. A business should only survive and thrive on the merits of its product or service.

Businesses and politicians are far too chummy, and it is not working for We the People. It’s not.

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

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

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

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

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

My Story with Imperia Vodka

Posted on by
Imperia Vodka

With the disgusting invasion of the Ukraine by Russia, a number of politicians ordered banning the sale of vodka produced in Russia. I’d like to talk about that today. I’m more of a whiskey and gin drinker but before covid one of my favorite neighborhood hangouts was Sub-Zero Vodka bar.

The thing I’d like to address today is if banning the sale of Russian Vodka is an appropriate response by various parties, the government, a tavern, my friends, and myself. It’s an interesting question for a Libertarian from the perspective of its legality and usefulness.

How I met Imperia and Hammer and Sickle Vodka

Ah, the good old days of Sub-Zero. My favorite bartender, Cailyn, introduced me to two premium vodkas, Imperia and Hammer and Sickle. Both are produced by Russian Standard. They accurately belong in the category of actual Russian vodka, unlike many of the brands being boycotted.

I spent many a pleasant hour snuggled up to the second bar sipping on icy-cold Imperia, or Hammer and Sickle when the aforementioned wasn’t in stock. The second bar because the ice top to the main bar proved more of a nuisance than a benefit, and the side bar was generally Cailyn’s station.

What if Sub-Zero was Still Open?

Sadly, Sub-Zero closed but what if I could still walk over? Would I order an Imperia? Do I think the mayor of St. Louis or the governor of Missouri should ban Russian vodka? Should the owners of Sub-Zero refuse to sell the vodka?

As complex as the question might be, my answer is pretty simple. I’d find a Ukrainian vodka to drink. That being said, if the owner continued to sell Imperia and Hammer and Sickle, I’d still patronize that establishment. I suspect, knowing what I know, they would likely stop selling it but that’s their business. I also wouldn’t give anyone else a dirty look or yell at them if they chose to order Imperia or Hammer and Sickle.

One of the important lessons I learned in my four years at the University of Idaho was not to criticize the way someone else goes about their business.

On the other hand, there is no way local, state, or federal government needs to get their sticky hands involved in the situation. It’s just not the business of government to tell me which vodka to drink or a business owner which vodka to sell.

This is what small government means. Sub-Zero can refuse to sell a brand of vodka or refuse to let me in if I’m not wearing a mask. They are a private business and the government has no business telling them what they can or cannot sell or telling them how to enforce a dress code.

What if Russian Standard hates Putin?

This is an important question. What if the owners of Russian Standard oppose Vladimir Putin and his amoral war? What if by not drinking their vodka, I actually help Putin by bankrupting those who oppose him?

This is the general problem with feel-good boycotts. When a boycott becomes some Cause Célèbre it ends up hurting many of the people it is designed to help. Meanwhile the self-righteous boycotters pat themselves on the back for a job well done. It’s a false sense of doing good when often you’re doing harm and it’s prevalent on both the Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle.

Conclusion

It’s entirely possible by not drinking Imperia or Hammer and Sickle I might be hurting a manufacturer that doesn’t support Putin. It’s also possible they are ardent Putin backers. I don’t know and I don’t care. I find what’s happening to be disgusting and wrong and I’m not drinking Russian vodka because of it.

Maybe I’ll never drink another glass of Imperia or Hammer and Sickle. That’s my business, not yours and not the government’s.

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.

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

What does Freedom Feel Like?

Posted on by
Freedom Feel Like

While watching the aftermath of the events in Washington D.C. I was struck by one of the protestors who said this is what freedom feels like. It struck me because it is a question worth exploring. What does freedom feel like?

The person who said these words certainly believed them, as they were spoken with passion and almost ecstatic enthusiasm. I think there is a common confusion that doing what you want to do is the answer to the question. What does freedom feel like to the protestor? Me doing exactly what I want, to whomever I want, and forcing them to do the same.

Naturally, it becomes quite clear when we examine the entirety of the answer as I’ve restated above, it is fundamentally wrong and almost the exact opposite of the correct reply. It seems paradoxical and it’s easy to understand the confusion. Freedom does mean, to a certain degree, being able to do what you want without interference from, particularly, the state. So, when someone is beating a police officer to force their view of the world onto those who disagree, it understandably feels like freedom. I’m doing what I want and getting my way.

This, happily, is only half the answer to the question as to what does freedom feel like. The other half of the answer is allowing other people to do as they desire. That’s the full answer to the question. Yes, I’m free to do as I want but to experience true freedom, I must allow others to do as they want, I must not use personal, or government, force to coerce others into doing something they do not want to do.

This is the conundrum of government as a whole and one of the driving forces of the Libertarian ideology. If we understand some people do bad things, anything from traffic violations to murder, then we must have rules and ways to enforce them. Government and law enforcement largely being the solution.

It is the implementation of those rules and enforcements that are of concern when we try to answer the question of what does freedom feel like. How much should we force people to do as I want. Where does your freedom to drive 100 mph down a neighborhood street infringe on my right to walk to the grocery store?

These are not easy questions to answer but I can state, with unequivocal certainty, that beating police officers, coercing politicians, violently telling half the population that you will bend them to your will is not the feeling of freedom, it is the glorious and disgusting feeling of unchecked, violent power, enforced with fists and guns.

We have elections, we have courts, we have law enforcement officers. Because they, through normal processes, decided that your candidate lost an election is not taking away your freedom. It is you who is taking, it is you who is stealing, it is you who is crushing freedom; despite your feelings to the contrary.

Tom Liberman

Aerosmith was Better on Drugs but for Whom?

Posted on by
Aerosmith was Better on Drugs

A social media friend of mine posited with unequivocal certainty that Aerosmith was better on drugs. By this he means their music was more enjoyable to him. The main point being, when taking mind-altering drugs, the band created better music. He might well be right but I think the important factor in that statement is my friend is viewing what is better through the lens of his betterment, not the members of the band.

I think this willingness to view the state of another person’s life and decision by how you are affected is a common human condition. I don’t blame my friend for saying what he said, and there are probably some reasonably objective standards we could apply to the question but that is not my point today.

Yes, it’s entirely possible Aerosmith was better on drugs then when they gave the lifestyle up. Perhaps their music was stronger, edgier, and better by all objective standards but that doesn’t change the underlying selfishness of the statement. I enjoyed the music more when the members of Aerosmith were blitzed out of their mind on mind-altering drugs. That they might have been shortening their lives, creating significant medical issues, courting death by overdose, hurting those around them with their behavior, is unimportant. Or at least less important than my enjoyment of their music.

Artists, by and large, suggests my friend, are better when they are whacked out of their gourd. Again, I’m not trying to insult my friend with this observation. I think we all look at life through our own eyes and what is good for us. I see nothing wrong with this philosophy, to at least some degree, but I think it’s important to recognize it.

Was Aerosmith better on drugs? For me, yes. For them, arguable. This is one of the fundamental ideas of objectivism and libertarianism, both philosophies my friend ridicules and perhaps why I’m writing this blog. It turns out my friend is an objectivist Libertarian of the first order when it comes to bands producing the kind of music he likes.

Take that, Harris.

Tom Liberman

Conservatorship of Britney Spears

Posted on by
Conservatorship of Britney Spears

The Conservatorship of Britney Spears is in the news these days because the entertainer was suing to regain control of her finances which her father has controlled for the last twelve years. The issue in regards to whether or not to revoke the conservatorship of Britney Spears is an interesting question from a Libertarian perspective.

First a little background, twelve years ago Spears went through a difficult period in her life that led to losing custody of her two children, serious financial setbacks, and out-of-control behavior fueled by various intoxicants. In order to prevent further damage, Jamie Spears, her father, petitioned the state of California for Conservatorship and was awarded such. It is now 2020 and, according to Britney Spears, times have changed. She thinks she is now capable of handling her own finances and is concerned her father is not managing the money appropriately.

The question about the conservatorship of Britney Spears is a difficult one because it seems quite clear that she was, twelve years ago, incapable of properly managing her life. The state allowed her father to step in and manage her money and life and, judging by events over those twelve years, he has done at least an adequate, if not exceptional, job.

That being said, who is Jamie Spears or the court system to say that Britney Spears is still incapable of managing her life and finances after twelve years of personal growth? The general Libertarian mantra suggests if a person wants to ruin their own life, it is their right to do so. However, if the person is not mentally or physically capable of doing so, the question is much more nuanced.

I have a mentally disabled family member and there is no question she should never be in charge of her own finances. The money would be stolen by dishonest entities and she would almost certainly be left destitute and in horrific conditions without protection.

Britney Spears is not so impaired, physically or mentally. She might well have a substance abuse predilection but we just don’t know one way or the other if she is capable of handling her own finances. It’s possible some con-artist is pulling the strings in an attempt to end the conservatorship of Britney Spears. I strongly suspect Jamie Spears is better capable of handling the finances than his daughter. That suspicion is not enough, in my opinion at least, to keep the conservatorship of Britney Spears fully in place.

In this particular case it is a father attempting to look out for the welfare of his daughter but there are parallels to government trying to look out for me and you. In some cases, the father does know best and, in some cases, so does the government. That does not mean we should allow them to take control of our lives without strong reasons.

Britney Spears has spent twelve years without control of her own money and I think that’s long enough, barring any evidence to the contrary. She should be allowed to manage her own finances. When it comes to controlling another person’s finances or life, we must err on the side of freedom or we risk tyranny.

Tom Liberman

No One Elected Jack Dorsey and that is the Point

Posted on by
No One Elected Jack Dorsey

No one elected Jack Dorsey who is the co-founder of twitter and, Senator Ted Cruz, that’s the entire point why he’s free to allow whatever sort of speech he wants on his platform. The very fact Senator Cruz is completely wrong about the meaning of Freedom of Speech as defined in the First Amendment to the Constitution is disheartening although expected.

The point of the First Amendment is that an elected official, you Senator Cruz, cannot so infringe upon our freedom of speech. The fact no one elected Jack Dorsey is absolute proof that he can do so however he sees fit.

If the publishers of Jewish website refuse to post inflammatory neo-Nazi and Ku-Klux-Klan messages that is their right to do so. If Breitbart News or some other conservative outlet doesn’t want to let Nancy Pelosi speak on their platform, that is absolutely their right. Why? Because no one elected Jack Dorsey and no one elected the owners of those organization.

It is you, Senator Cruz, you who are restricted by the Constitution of the United States from arresting me for printing this blog. That’s what Freedom of Speech means. It applies to you and your political colleagues in Washington D.C., in the governor’s mansions around this nation, in the municipal courthouses. You cannot infringe what I say or, more importantly, choose not to say. That’s the entire point!

By telling Twitter, or any other media outlet, what they must print under threat of punishment, you are violating the First Amendment. This is the arrogance of government today. Politicians like Cruz tell us; not only can we tell you what to say under threats but we’re happy to do so and cite the very document that explicitly prevents us from doing it as justification.

Madness! Insanity!

The answer to your question, Senator Cruz, is no one elected Jack Dorsey. Now, get about trying to do something to help this country rather than turn it into everything the Constitution is designed to prevent.

Tom Liberman

Jared Kushner and Black People wanting Success

Posted on by
Jared Kushner

Jared Kushner recently implied one of the reasons black people have struggled in the United States is they don’t want to be successful. His exact words were … but he (Trump) can’t want them to be successful more than they want to be successful. The question this Libertarian asks is: how do we define success?

I’m sure Jared Kushner and others will be spinning his comments one way or the other and that’s fine. However, there is no doubt in my mind Jared Kushner was simply repeating a line I’ve oft heard before. Black people have only themselves to blame for their lack of success in the United States. It’s a refrain that ignores a great deal of reality and, conveniently, absolves white people from any blame in the matter.

Now, I’m a white guy. Let’s get that out of the way. I don’t know what it’s like to be a black person nor can I speak for them on this subject. I’m merely giving my thoughts on it and I have at least the background of a racially mixed primary and secondary education to support me.

When Jared Kushner talks about black people having to want to succeed, he’s talking about himself, not black people. How he defines success, how his wealthy New Jersey father defines success, how his culturally Jewish heritage defines success. This is not the same as many other people and cultures.

The inherent problem with this attitude is it makes huge assumptions about the personal desires of other people and the cultural mores they value.

I think it’s safe to say black people have compelling reasons for not wanting to seek success the way a largely white America and Jared Kushner define such. We don’t even need to bring up the subject of slavery. Black people today are oppressed by white people overtly and covertly. One of the hidden oppressions is on full demonstration when Jared Kushner speaks on the subject. You must succeed the way I define it, otherwise it isn’t success. That’s his inference and black people have been hearing that for a long, long time. Many of them aren’t buying it and who can blame them?

Recently a person whose own background and culture strongly resemble that of Jared Kushner, Ben Shapiro, wrote that rap isn’t music. Presumably people who make great rap songs that others enjoy are not successful in his imagination. That’s the problem with trying to define how other people should view success.

For some people having a country house with a big yard to mow and some chickens is success. For others going billions of dollars into debt to purchase real-estate holdings and not paying any taxes is their version of success. For me success is defined by writing books that few people purchase. There is no one path to success and when we try to force our version of it on others, we are being presumptuous.

The fact Jared Kushner thinks he knows how black people should view success is part and parcel of the entire problem. People resent such a patronizing attitude.

It is impossible for irony to be more on display when Kushner goes on to blame black people for protesting the murder of George Floyd by crying on Instagram but not offering solutions. Kushner says you solve problems with solutions. Jared Kushner, instead of telling black people they just need to want to have success, maybe you should offer a practical and pragmatic solution, instead of crying to Fox News.

Tom Liberman

Debates about Government Oil Policy

Posted on by
Government Oil Policy

What should be done about government oil policy? That’s the question President Trump and former Vice-President Biden spoke about at the Presidential Debate on October 22 but it’s not really the question at all. We don’t have a Libertarian Candidate in the debates and therefore we only get to hear answers that amount to the same thing. Both Democrats and Republicans are making the same argument.

The problem is Trump and Biden want the same thing; they want a government oil policy that interferes in the natural capitalistic processes. I know, I know, you think your side is completely opposite of the other side but you’re badly mistaken.

Once you admit you want Trump to use the government to support the oil industry or you want Biden to give government aid to renewable energy; you’ve tacitly admitted the government gets a say in the matter at all. If Libertarian Jo Jorgensen had been included in the debate she would, I feel confident, say the only good government oil policy is to stay out of it.

The government; state, federal, and local, should not be giving subsidies to oil or renewables. Imagine if, back in the day, government officials felt the need to protect horses and the industries that support them by suppressing motor vehicles. What if the government poured millions of dollars into candle productions and put up road blocks to electric lights? Where would the United States be as a world power if it had acted in the interests of either?

I wrote a blog about why renewable energy is quickly overtaking coal and oil as the main source of power in the United States but that’s not what I’m writing about today. The message I’d like to convey is when you agree the government has the power to support a particular industry for the good of the nation, you are agreeing with both Trump and Biden. You are, for all practical purposes, making the same argument.

Once you say there can be a government oil policy to influence one of the base structures of modern society, energy, you give it the right to control everything. If you don’t like Trump then you must tell Biden to stop promoting renewable energy. If you fear Biden then you must tell Trump to stop supporting big oil and coal. If you support one, you support both, though you almost certainly imagine you do not.

The more power government has in our lives the more control someone you don’t like will have when they ascend to the highest offices. Do you fear Biden? Vote Libertarian. Do you fear Trump? Vote Libertarian. It’s the only way to be sure.

Tom Liberman

The Problem is there was no Crime in the Breonna Taylor Case

Posted on by
Breonna Taylor

The Breonna Taylor case is making a lot of headlines and people are upset only one criminal charge, reckless endangerment, was filed against the officers. The problem isn’t that a single charge was filed, the problem is that everything the officers did, except shooting blindly into a room, was perfectly legal. The problem is that none of them can be charged with a crime.

The problem is that police can, and all to frequently do, murder people legally. It’s vitally important to understand this is a problem for the people and for the police, both are the victims here.

This is the state of our legal system as a result of the failed War on Drugs that allows police to kill with legal impunity, to steal your money with legal impunity, to throw flashbang grenades into baby cribs with impunity, to intimidate, harass, abuse, imprison, torture, absolutely legally. That’s the problem and if you don’t see it, you’ll be a victim soon enough under the unlikely circumstances that you have not been already.

The problem isn’t the police, the problem is our society, our laws, our willingness to give up freedom and reduce safety at the same time.

Many right-wing Trump supporters out there are angry about what is going on to poor people in this nation. What’s happening to poor black people is exactly why you voted for Trump, except it was being done to you. You in West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, and lots of other places were left out when the rich got richer, laws designed to protect wealthy people left you out in the cold in a crap job without enough money to feed your kids and no hope for advancement.

Farmers see their land taken by corporate bankers. Energy workers see their livelihood being taken from them. President Trump promised you he’d stop it all but instead he’s redirected your anger to poor, largely minority people, who are being trampled upon in exactly the same way. These people are your allies in this fight. Antifa, Alt-Right, Libertarian, BLM, the police themselves; the Trumps and Pelosis of the world want you to fight each other so you don’t line them up against a wall and put a clip into their center mass.

Breonna Taylor is dead because you gave away your freedom. You stood by and watched as politicians passed laws for the War on Drug, the War Powers Act, The National Emergency Act. You stood by while local officials made it impossible for you to drive to work without violating the law and if you get on the wrong side of the police department, they will figure out a way to fine you to within an inch of your life to finance their bloated government.

Breonna Taylor was absolutely murdered by police who got a stupid no-knock warrant to kick in her door with guns drawn because she was dating a guy who sold drugs. She was murdered and it’s not against the law. That’s the problem. Police officers, everyone wants to kill you because politicians have set you up to take the fall, no matter how much they pretend to be on your side, they are murdering you. They are sending you out to take bullets for them.

You all need to figure this out. All those organizations fighting each other in the streets of Louisville need to get together, then we will actually see change.

Tom Liberman