Tag Archives: News

Teaser – Frustration leads to Violence

Posted on by

FrustrationThis is a topic I’ve thought quite a lot about over the years. The relationship between frustration, anger, and eventually violence. The terrible actions of a United States service member in Afghanistan brings the topic to the front of mind again and I thought I’d share my thoughts on the subject with my vast audience.

I haven’t spoken with any psychiatric experts on this particular topic and I’m certainly not one myself but I think there is a direct link between frustration and violence and I’ll tell you why tomorrow. I’ll also talk about why this link is incredibly important.

See you then,

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Freedom of Religion

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of religion cuts both ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Teaser – Freedom of Religion

Posted on by

Lately I’ve noticed a few stories where someone’s freedom of religion entitles them certain immunities to constitutional requirements. I suppose the most recent case was the birth control flap that is currently making the political rounds but there are a few more of similar ilk. It does bring up some interesting questions. What is the meaning of the First Amendment and how does the Constitution of the United States apply to religious organizations and individuals?

I’m going to give it a bit of look tomorrow although it might end up being too in depth a topic to handle in one day. There are a lot of issues and complications to the idea but I’ll give it a go.

Stay tuned to find out my take on freedom of religion!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Science Rocks

Science Week – Engineering

Posted on by

ScienceMy third day of Science Week pays tribute to the engineers of the world, both past and present. If it wasn’t for them we wouldn’t be able to get to work in the morning, or at least it would not be nearly as easy. So, stick around and learn all about engineering!

Engineers have been an integral part of improving society since people began to write down their achievements and likely long before that!

Engineering has fascinated the world since early times with the ancients making spectacular structures like the Pyramids of Egypt, the Lighthouse of Alexandria, the Parthenon, the Great Wall of China, and the list goes on. I could easily wax poetic about my favorite subject, history, until your eyes bleed but I’ll refrain, you can thank me later in the comments.

My goal today is talk about how engineering and engineers have changed your life for the better and how important it is that we continue to encourage people to take up this noble field. Math and science are the backbone of all technological achievements and we do well as a society to tell children exactly that and reward them when they show an interest in those fields.

Modern engineering began in the Renaissance with men like William Gilbert and Thomas Savery A look at the biographies of those men is well worth a perusal for anyone with a casual interest in engineering.

The modern era traces its roots to Allesandro Voltra, Michael Faraday, and George Ohm among others. Gosh, I really could write a blog about each of these amazing men but as I sit here at my computer I cannot help but think about how much my life depends on modern engineering.

At its most basic engineers apply the principals of Physics and Mathematics to improve the status quo.

My alarm clock wakes me up in the morning and without the ability to tell exact time modern life ceases to exist as we know it. Thank you, John Harrison.

Of course, the alarm clock wouldn’t work without electricity, so thank you again, Allesandro!

I’m about to drive thirty miles to work. That’s a distance that would have been impossible until automobiles were invented and then roads for them to traverse. We take roads for granted but without them life is very different. I’m tempted to talk about the Via Appia and Appius Cladius Caecus but must refrain, stay on topic!

Concrete. There’s a story. I don’t have time to tell it all but suffice it say that the Roman engineers so valued it they kept their formulations as tightly held secrets. When the Empire fell concrete was lost until likely the 16th Century. Old Roman ruins still stand today!

My work today is in Granite City, Illinois and my drive takes me past the home of the St. Louis Cardinals, Busch Stadium. Thank you, Jim Chibnall. I might be tempted to mention that this ballfield is where I get to see Adam Wainwright apply the principals of aerodynamics to the curveball.

Today I teach steelworkers how to use computers but as long as we’re talking about steel we need to think about all the products that use it. Did I mention that after I pass the stadium I get to see the most beautiful monument in the world? Thank you, Eero Saarinen and Hannskarl Bandel for the Gateway Arch. Made of steel.

Steel is in virtually every building, every car, and certainly in the Eades Bridge on which I drive over the Mississippi River. Thank you, James B. Eades.

Gosh, this post could go on forever and I haven’t even gotten out of the car! So, take a few seconds to appreciate all the work of engineers the world over and how it effects your life at almost every moment.

It seems like we want to emphasize business, and medicine, and law when it comes to educating our children these days and there is nothing wrong with those fields but without the engineers of the world … well … the world wouldn’t be what we know it.

So to all you future engineers out there, including my niece Tess, who are studying hard, keep up the good work! You will change the world.

Like, Tweet, Pinterest, Stumble, Digg, Comment, or otherwise share if you think someone you know might appreciate my blog!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Privacy in the Modern World – Conclusions

Posted on by

PrivacyAfter a day off to talk about the magnificent sports rivalry between Kansas and Missouri that, barring a change of heart, has come to a conclusion I return to the highly popular issue of privacy in the United States and its impact on our freedom and safety.

Over the last few days I’ve discussed the definition of privacy and how it has changed over the years with advancing technology first from things like photographs to today’s computer age. What I want to discuss today involves how that technology and change in privacy is going to effect both our privacy and our freedom.

One of the most powerful new tools in the hands of both citizens and government law enforcement is remote surveillance devices. We’ve seen stoplight cameras for a few years and individual states have rulings on their legality in regards to the Sixth Amendment to the constitution of the U.S. I don’t want to get into that level of detail in this post and I’ll keep things more general.

The idea is that the state has certain legal tools which they use to promote the general safety of its citizens. We have traffic laws so that rogue drivers don’t put innocents at risk, the police serve a useful and important purpose in society. The difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy is an important distinction and all too often I think Libertarians slip into a more Anarchistic point of view. Again, I’ll save that topic for a later post.

We are going to see a huge increase of state operated drone vehicles in our skies and on our roads in the next few years. Largely these will be placed under the auspices of securing our safety and there is no doubt they do offer benefits in that regard. But, they also take away from our privacy. In the U.S. we are guaranteed protection from the state unless they have reason to watch us. The government cannot come into our homes without a warrant and they cannot listen to our conversations without probable cause but remote surveillance devices are always on, always watching.

Another factor is that citizens now have a far greater ability to watch the state. With remote control vehicles more readily available and increasingly powerful we can check up on the police and other government agents to make sure they are not overstepping the laws in the prosecution of criminals. We can also use such devices to watch for legal violations of neighbors, local businesses, and just about anything we want.

This opens up a huge area of questions. If I use my increasingly sophisticated remote control helicopter to spy on a neighbor, say, hitting his child, and then turn that over to family services what is the constitutional answer? Did I break the law? Should they go to prison? Have their child removed? Hidden camera have been used to tape people in normally private behavior for the purpose of humiliation or blackmail and has led to suicide.

It’s a hugely complex issue and I can’t come up with a single solution but I’d offer up this advice. Surveillance cameras offer useful tools to law enforcement and private citizens but also present significant issues in the realm of privacy. We have the right to privacy in our own house but there are ever increasing chances that it will be violated by people using such devices for their own purposes, well-intentioned or not.

In conclusion I offer the only advice that seems plausible.

  1. Diligently protect our freedom by prosecuting those who use such devices in violations of existing privacy laws.
  2. Invest in devices that pick up wireless signals that might be emanating from your residence.
  3. Keep your curtains closed.
  4. And most importantly, embrace Libertarianism. We have the right to privacy and we should respect that others have the same right.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Rock Chalk vs M – I – Z

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Privacy throughout History

Posted on by
Privacy

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

How Privacy has Changed

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

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

Privacy Rights

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

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

Modern Technology

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

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

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

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

What does it Mean

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Liberman

Privacy in the United States – Definition

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Affirmative Action

Posted on by

Affirmative ActionYesterday I talked about how playing chess against a wide variety of players in the internet age improved my game at a much faster rate than when I played against the same opponent again and again. This led me to the conclusion that variety of experience leads to a better life and improved skill. I want to take this argument and apply it to the idea of affirmative action.

As usual, I think it is a good idea to actually define what we are talking about in order to fully understand it and come to accurate conclusions with our critical thinking skills.

Affirmative action is a relatively simple idea. A particular group of people is underrepresented in a situation and laws are created so that this group must be given an equal opportunity to participate. For example; a study reveals that while Martians represent 8% of the total population of Utopia City they account for 1% of students at Utopia University. A law is passed that forces Utopia U. to make certain 8% of its incoming class is of Martian descent.

It seems a quite reasonable solution to the problem and becomes even more reasonable when the problem is related to active discrimination against the party in question.

In the United States the original affirmative action laws, signed by John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961, were created to counteract racial bias against black U.S. citizens. It originally prohibited discrimination against people based on race, creed, color, or national origin.

The advantage to creating such laws is that the Martians get a fair chance to participate at Utopia U. Another advantage is that we expose all our students to a wider array of cultural ideas and this makes them a more rounded and essentially better people.

The disadvantages are that such laws work against institutions that are not practicing discrimination. If I run Utopia U. and my only criteria for admission is the students with the best grades then I’m forced to enroll Martians with lower scores at the expense of a potential students who have a better chance to succeed. This is, in itself, discrimination.

So, what’s the solution?

To my way of thinking there should simply be laws against discrimination but everyone should be able to hire, enroll, or otherwise deal with people as they see fit. If a case of discrimination can be proven then the violator should face whatever punishment the law suggests, fine or prison. The idea that we must have 8% Martians at Utopia U. as a way of trying to monitor discrimination is fine but it is not actual proof. We might have only 1% Martians because only 1% are qualified to get in.

The advantage of experiencing life more fully is not one the government can solve. We must actively try to experience life more fully and meet different types of people as I discussed yesterday. If we do this we become better and our friends and relatives will copy the behavior. I just don’t think the government can legislate this solution as well-intentioned as the idea might be. 

It’s fine to use statistical analysis to look for anomalies and then investigate potential discrimination but I think it’s a mistake to insist upon particular numerical values. The Supreme Court of the U.S. largely agrees with this point of view.

I’m of the opinion that affirmative action should largely be phased out although discrimination laws should certainly be kept in place. I see the racism problem as largely, although certainly not completely, solved in the United States. If we can instill a Meritocracy based system then all such nonsense can finally be put to rest.

One of the ways to do this is to always critically analyze a situation and make the best decision. The best decision is blind, like justice, of things like race, creed, sex, handicap, or other potential discriminations. Keep in mind that what is best for you and your future involves making good decisions. You want to surround yourself with people who are best equipped to handle the job regardless of any other factor.

If you think this is worth sharing please Link, Like, Stumble, Tweet, or otherwise share! Comment below if you agree or disagree.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Teaser – Affirmative Action

Posted on by

Affirmative ActionTomorrow I’m going to take the idea of how diversity is a good thing from today’s post and extend that to the idea of Affirmative Action. If the playing field is unfair for a particular group of people is it the government’s responsibility to level that field?

I may end up taking a couple of days to examine this complex issue.

Stay tuned,

Tom Liberman

Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Anti-Trust Legislation

Posted on by

anti-trustAs a Libertarian I’m largely against government interference in the freedom of people to do as they will. There are limits and one of those is anti-trust laws. These laws are put in place to make sure that competition is waged on a level playing field. This is an area, in my opinion, that separates Libertarianism from Anarchism.

In any case, the purpose of this blog is to talk about why anti-trust legislation is needed. To start things off I’ll talk about the definition anti-trust. I’m going to generalize and a full perusal of the anti-trust Wikipedia article and its linked definitions is a worthwhile study.

Anti-trust laws are designed to stop things like collusion and cartel. Collusion is when a group of people agree to limit open competition. It is usually marked by uniform pricing among competing items. A cartel is an open agreement to set prices at a certain threshold.

A second thing they are designed to prevent is market dominance and particularly monopoly. Both of these situations occur when one supplier controls such a large percentage of a particular commodity that they can set a price as they choose rather than being forced to offer a competitive price by competition.

Acquisitions are also under the purvey of these kinds of laws. If one company attempts to purchase all its competitors then monopoly or dominance ensues. Both of those things hurt the consumers ability to get product at a fair price.

There are host of other anti-competitive practices that include things like dumping; wherein a company forces competition out of the market through cheap pricing, refusing to deal; when a group of companies refuse to purchase from a particular vendor to put them out of business, dividing territories; when two or more companies agree not to compete with one another.

In my mind we need anti-trust laws for the same reason we need laws in the first place. It is human nature to take advantage of a situation in any way possible. One of the pro-capitalist arguments is that it caters to human nature and I agree with this but we must also take human nature into account when we make our laws. Anti-trust laws and general regulation hopefully provide a level playing field against unfair practices that hurt capitalism and the consumer.

If we can apply broad regulation that levels the playing field then the business that is operated most efficiently wins. I think it is important for the business community to understand that some regulation is required to prevent unethical people and businesses from dominating the market and putting all the ethical people out of work.

I’m almost finished here but I think I need to explain what I mean by broad regulation. I don’t recommend legislation that takes every possibility into account because that sort of law is doomed to failure. What I mean is more general types of regulation that simply allow each company to play on the same field.

We have laws that make sure manufacturers put the quantity of material in the food container on the package. This regulation is easy to comply with and understand. That’s the goal of all regulation, simple and cheap to implement for the producer, easy to understand for the consumer. It’s not always easy to achieve but I do think it is necessary to allow capitalism and the free market to thrive.

I welcome disagreement as always!

Like, Tweet, Stumble, LinkedIn, and otherwise share if you think this is something that might interest your friends.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Teaser – Anti-Trust Laws

Posted on by

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

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

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

Stay tuned and see you tomorrow!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

We the People

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, as to my opinion, finally.

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

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

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

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Teaser – the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Posted on by

Great Seal of United StatesTomorrow I leave the heady world of sports and take on a topic which might not provoke quite as much interest but is of worthy of exploration. The 17th Amendment to the constitution of the United States changed the way senators are chosen. Prior to May 31, 1913, senators were appointed to their position by state legislatures. Afterwards they were directly elected by popular vote.

There are a number of arguments both for and against the amendment but there is no doubt its implementation has had a profound effect on the United States.

Stay tuned for details!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Linsanity versus Tebowmania

Posted on by

Jeremy LinThe recent rise of New York Knick basketball player Jeremy Lin and his religious beliefs made me think of the rise of Tim Tebow and Tebowmania. In this case what I want to examine is why Tim Tebow engenders a large amount of anger and even hate while thus far Jeremy Lin is a popular figure.

The two have many similarities in their stories and their strong religious belief and performance on the field of play makes them compelling stories. There are also significant differences between them and any comparison loses some of its legitimacy because of this fact.

Still, I want to examine why I think faith based thinking is the reason for much of the anger.

A quick summary of their stories for anyone reading who is not a sports fan.

Tim Tebow was arguably one of the greatest college quarterbacks of all time helping the Florda Gators to two National Championships. His strong religious beliefs and lifestyle made him a favorite among evangelical christians. His running style in college led many to believe he lacked the skills to translate to a successful NFL quarterback and despite being drafted in the first round most experts predicted a lackluster career.

Jeremy Lin went to Harvard where they have no athletic scholarships and went undrafted by the NBA after completing his matriculation. He is of asian american descent and one of the few players in the NBA of that race. He, like Tebow, is also deeply religious. In the last few weeks he has become one of the bright young stars of the NBA with strong performances for the New York Knicks.

The two are obviously quite different in many ways but what strikes me when reading the various comments and critiques of both players is that Tebow seems to garner a great deal of vehemently angry posts whereas Lin does not.

One of the themes I hammer home in my novels is the contrast between faith based thinking and critical thinking. In the case of Tebow and Lin supporters I think there is a tremendous amount of faith based thinking. Both men are deeply religious and faith based people want them to be good, often refusing to acknowledge the real issues that detractors mention.

But why does Tebow generate so much more anger?

Here is where it gets interesting for me.

I think the reason Tebow generates so much anger is that the stark reality of faith based thinking versus critical thinking is exposed dramatically. Tebow’s statistical play is among the worst in the NFL whereas Lin’s statistics are outstanding. What I think is important is the transparent nature of faith based thinkers refusal to accept reality. Tebow has many tremendous qualities but also has some obvious negative traits as a football quarterback. Many of his faith based fans absolutely will not deal with these on a logical level. They want him to be good so, in their minds, he is good.

This anger against faith based thinking is well deserved. Faith based thinking is bad for people personally, bad for them professionally, and bad for society as a whole. In what other place in life does faith based thinking work besides religion? Do you hope the baby’s diapers will clean themselves? Do you have faith the boss will promote you if you do a poor job? Do you think the house will get clean on it’s own?

What I find distressing is the misplaced anger against Tebow and potentially Lin if his play falters. Put your hate where it belongs, on the faith based thinkers, not Tebow and Lin. They both seem to be trying to make their way in an incredibly difficult profession without resorting to faith based thinking. Both are working hard to improve their craft.

I say, let’s watch Tim play and see if he gets better. Let’s find out if he is a good quarterback by critically analyzing his performance and see how many games he wins in the NFL. If he keeps winning games then let’s call him a good quarterback, if not, then treat him accordingly. And the same for Jeremy. Let’s see how the season plays out. In a meritocracy it is incredibly important to give people chances and even more important to reward them when they succeed.

This atheist is rooting for Tim and Jeremy, prove those detractors wrong!

Please comment, tweet, like, stumble, digg, and all the rest if you agree or disagree!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Nuclear Power – Final Conclusion

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

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

Nuclear Plant

Nuclear Power – Pros and Cons

Posted on by

Nuclear PowerToday I’ll try to examine the arguments for and against Nuclear Power. It’s a controversial subject to say the least and I think it definitely needs a further study. It is also an incredibly important argument because energy is the driving factor in many of the issues the world and the United States face.

The need for energy in the modern world continues to rise and how we get that energy and who profits from payments for that energy is a key to future economic power. The rise of the fundamentalist Islamic state was certainly fueled by oil money more than any other factor and the revenue that will be generated by future, ever increasing, energy demands is a topic well worth discussion.

Wikipedia, as usual, rises to the occasion with an excellent article about the debate over Nuclear Power but I’ll try to summarize here as best as possible.

Energy Source

There is little argument here. Nuclear power is a tremendous energy source, just look at the sun, and has the potential to provide all the energy the world needs for the almost infinite future.

Energy Security

This is not about the safety of nuclear energy but about how a country can cut dependence on other nations for their energy demands. Again, for the United States, there is little argument here. Nuclear frees us from foreign dependence. We don’t have the oil reserves to sustain ourselves. I know, I know, we have shale. People, it doesn’t count. It’s not really feasible as a substitute for Light Sweet Crude and it’s not even better than coal for simple power plants. It’s filthy, expensive to extract, and basically not worth talking about compared to nuclear. If anyone tells you the U.S. has huge deposits of oil this is what they are talking about and they are, essentially, lying to you.

Reliability

Again, nuclear beats out wind, tide, and sun for its reliability. Always on, always ready. However, there is argument that nuclear plants are likely to shut down under extreme conditions. I see this but frankly, so are conventional plants. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that nuclear power is less reliable than other sources.

Economics

This is a difficult one to track down. The basic idea is how much does it cost to produce the same amount of energy from nuclear, coal, wind, sun, tide, etc. There are a number of studies on this and it is absolutely true that while at initial glance nuclear power seems cheap there are factors including massive government subsidies to start up plants. Many people will quote the cost of energy in France, very low, but they don’t take into account that the entire nuclear system was built with government money.

Fairly reliable data indicates nuclear costs more than coal, gas, and hydroelectric but less than others. However, as infrastructure for solar and wind increase their cost will drop. It’s a tough one to answer directly. I’d say it’s fair to call nuclear competitive.

Environmental Impact

This is one that nuclear appears to lose, hands down. But, on closer examination it actually does quite well, particularly in comparison to coal which has a large negative impact. Miners lose their lives, filth enters the air and water, etc. Nuclear is largely clean except if disaster strikes. But, when disaster strikes it is bad. Oil spills are bad as well. Clearly, wind, wave, and solar have a lesser impact but solar panels require chemicals to produce and wind turbines take their toll on wildlife. In conclusion I’d have to side with renewable energy on this one.

Waste

Ah, the Achilles Heel of nuclear power. What to do with the waste. One possibility is Thorium reactors which don’t produce nearly the large amount of toxicity of uranium and plutonium reactors. Still, they produce highly toxic waste. Storing this waste is a huge problem, not in that we don’t have vast tracts of land available to store it, but do we have the political will to open up those lands and drive the waste across the country to them?

Accidents

Another thorn in the side of nuclear power. Accidents happen and in nuclear power they can cause utter devestation. Still, oil spills cause far more damage every year than nuclear accidents. France has been on the nuclear grid for many years without a single mishap. Still, the more plants out there increases the chance of accidents like in Japan.

Proposed Fourth Generation plants are definitely safer and Thorium plants actually have very little chance of disaster as they cool naturally over time if a mishap occurs.

Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism

This is yet another problem for nuclear power. The byproduct of Uranium and Plutonium plants is material that can be converted into a powerful nuclear bomb. If stolen this presents a huge danger to the world. Thorium plants produce less dangerous material but still presents dangers.

All right, I’ve gone on pretty long here. I’ll save my conclusions until tomorrow but hopefully you have a better idea of the pros and cons of nuclear power.

Like, Tweet, Stumble, and comment if you feel the urge!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear Power – from a Critical Point of View

Posted on by

Nuclear powerNuclear Power is a controversial topic to be certain. In the next couple of days I’m going to try and look at the arguments for and against while applying my critical thinking skills to the debate.

I think first we have to actually define what nuclear power means. There are a lot of misconceptions and the topic is more than a little complicated. I don’t fully understand the nuances of the reaction by any stretch of the imagination but I’ll try to couch it in relatively easy to understand terms. By the way, this definition of a problem is critical in the analysis process. Read my Root Cause article.

Nuclear power plants, in their simplest concept, turn water into steam which is pressurized and fed into a steam turbine. The turbine then rotates and drives an electrical generator. Steam turbines of this nature account for about 90% of all electrical energy produced in the United States. A lot of this comes from coal and other non-nuclear sources but the basic process is similar.

Now, I know all my chemist and other scientifically knowledgeable friends and nieces will probably say this is too much of a simplification but my point isn’t really the process, so please bear with me.

In order to generate the heat to boil water and produce steam a nuclear reactor introduces an extra neutron into some uranium or plutonium. This generates a chain reaction wherein more and more of the uranium or plutonium splits into smaller elements and produces heat.

There are a number of arguments for and against nuclear power. I’ll get into the pros and cons tomorrow I just want to go over a few facts about how nuclear power is currently being used throughout the world.

It is estimated that about 16% of all electricity generated in the world comes from nuclear sources although because of ineffeciency of distribution it accounts for only about 2.6% of consumption.

The United States, France, and Japan are the leaders in production with France most of all depending on it for their energy demands. France in particular is used by proponents of nuclear power as a success story but there are nuances to that argument as well. Again, I’ll spend some time tomorrow talking about pros and cons.

Nuclear power also accounts for a huge percentage of the total energy produced in the universe. It’s what makes stars glow. That is something to think about.

I think I’ve laid out the concepts of nuclear power here pretty well and tomorrow I’ll talk about the pros and cons. I might end up having to split that into two articles because the arguments are complex and interesting and I like to keep these blogs relatively short so that you can read them easily during a break at work.

As always, tweet, comment, like, share, and otherwise tell your friends if you think this is worth reading.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Root Cause

Root Cause

Posted on by

Blame GameToday I’m going to discuss the concept of root cause. This is the underlying cause of any problem. It is important to understand this because if we fail in our original estimation as to the root cause of a problem then any solution we might decide upon is going to be fundamentally flawed.

It is important for another reason as well; in order to get elected, receive a promotion, sell a product, or get ahead there are people out there who will attempt to distract us from the root cause of an issue in order to lay the blame on a tangential target. If we allow our critical thinking skills to fail then we can be fooled in making a poor decision. The more poor decisions we make the worse our life becomes.

The idea of a root cause is simple enough. I would suggest a lengthy perusal of the Wikipedia article linked above but it gives a good short checklist to find if a cause is root or  not.

  1. It is clearly a (or the) major cause of the symptoms.
  2. It has no worthwhile deeper cause. This allows you to stop asking why at some appropriate point in root cause analysis. Otherwise you may find your-self digging to the other side of the planet.
  3. It can be resolved. Sometimes it’s useful to emphasize unchangeable root causes in your model for greater understanding and to avoid trying to resolve them without realizing it.

What’s important to understand here is that we face this sort of critical thinking challenge multiple times every day. Every problem that we face needs a critical analysis. It is one of those things we must get into the habit of doing, like going to the gym, eating right, and trying to be patient when helping our aging parents with their computer issues. The more you go through the root cause analysis process the more it will become habit and the better your decisions will become.

Wikipedia again comes to the rescue with this root cause analysis article and, again, I suggest a lengthy perusal but I’ll try to sum it up quickly here.

  1. Define the problem! I can’t stress this one enough. Often we don’t even know what the problem is in the first place and we’re asking the wrong questions.
  2. Be systematic. This is crucial because we often have preconceived notions of blame. We often don’t want to blame ourselves because of something called Cognitive Dissonance. I will devote an entire blog to that topic soon. Look at all the possible explanations even the ones you would ordinarily dismiss.
  3. Be aware that after you find one root cause that you cannot stop. There can be multiple root causes.
  4. Develop a timeline. This can be extremely helpful in ordering root causes and contributory factors.

So, the idea here is to properly define a problem and its root causes and only then can we go about finding a solution. And that is why we do this. To find a real solution. Not the mumbo-jumbo solutions offered to us by politicians and policy makers. Real solutions to real problems. If you can do this regularly and effectively it will change your life and if we can get an entire nation of people doing it then it will change the world.

And now a simple example: You’ve noticed your clothes don’t fit you anymore.

Likely Causes: I’m eating too much, I have a medical condition, I’m exercising less, my clothes are shrinking.

Analysis: Count your calories and compare them to charts for someone of our size and age. Count the number of hours your exercise. Visit a doctor. Go to the store and try on some new clothes of the same size as the old.

You get the point. It’s important to do this because maybe it was a medical condition and you just saved your life. Try this approach to one problem a day and if that works, try two a day after a while. Get in the habit!

As always, Like, Tweet, Comment, Stumble, and otherwise tell your friends if you think this might be of interest to them.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

p.s. A loyal viewer sent me a link to an excellent website, Transparency International, in regards to my post on Crony Capitalism. Check it out.

Crony Capitalism

Crony Capitalism

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Liberman