Tag Archives: Politics

Chinese Casino Owns Saipan

Posted on by

Saipan CasinoA company claiming to be a Chinese casino purveyor completely owns and largely operates the United States island of Saipan. The total corruption of government is something that happens in foreign countries, not in the United States of America, or so you thought.

Saipan is Commonwealth of the United States. This means it operates under United States law. Well, at least it did until a Chinese company called Imperial Pacific moved into town. They claim to own and operate casinos although they are really a money laundering organization. Wealthy Chinese citizens fly to Saipan, turn in enormous sums of yuan currency, play the tables for a few days winning or losing small amounts, and then collect their money in dollars, euros, or sterling. This allows them to take their money out of China, where it might be seized by the communist government at any moment, and transfer it to banks throughout the world where it less likely to be stolen. The middle people take their cut and that share has completely corrupted the government of Saipan.

The problem is they need the support of the local government in order to make this happen. Before the casino was finished, it still isn’t in full operation, it was doing about $2 billion a month in transactions. Imperial Pacific pays $15 million a year to the local government and has hired former U.S. Governors and high-level FBI and CIA officials to front its operations. These are merely bribes to ensure they can continue their operations without legal oversight. Lawmakers in Saipan have changed any number of laws in order to accommodate Imperial Pacific’s various schemes. The families of the leading politicians are all on the payroll one way or another, construction projects, zoning plans, land deals, etc.

The casino itself was built in an unsafe way by undocumented workers, all because the politicians of Saipan and their friends in the United States willfully turned, and continue to turn, a blind eye. There’s money to be made, after all.

That’s the moral of the story. Never has the world been so awash in money, enormous sums. When people try to resist this avalanche of cash they are simply ignored or punished. The only people who get ahead are those on the take. Government is swept away in the wave.

You might think the United States is immune to the malign influence of corruption, graft, and bribery. Those days are over. Wealthy democracies are slowly succumbing to this influence. Those who worship money are quickly coming into positions of power the world over.

What’s at stake? Your freedom.

Tom Liberman

Blue Apron or Food Stamps?

Posted on by

food stampsPresident Trump is apparently championing an effort to change the way food stamps are allocated to people in the United States who cannot afford to feed themselves and I wanted to examine this from a Libertarian point of view. The current program distributes food stamps which can be used to purchase a variety of products although there are limits on the type of food that is allowed to be bought. The proposal is to replace this system with ingredients which are then prepared by the recipient, in the style of Blue Apron.

I suspect the reason this proposal is being considered is the perception people who are getting food stamps use them on wasteful items like processed foods such as chips or on expensive items like steak, rather than using them for staple items. This perception is largely incorrect although not particularly relevant to my objections.

There is certainly a visceral appeal to the idea of providing simple ingredients using healthy options to the people who use food stamps. I also agree it is probably healthier for many of those who get food stamps. There are a number of problems with this plan although I’d like to focus on a single one. The plan assumes government knows better what foods people should eat than the individuals themselves.

While government might be right in some instances, it is a classic example of the arrogance of those who promote a beneficent and intrusive government. We know what is better for you than you do, just trust us to put the right things in the food and don’t worry about anything else, we’ll take care of you.

Now, there are other issues. It is certainly more expensive to contract this work out and where billions of dollars of government contracts are in play there is inevitable corruption. There is no doubt the companies who receive the bids to provide the food will end up skimping on ingredients and hurting some people. Still, with that said, my objections are purely Libertarian.

Government should not be the one to make decisions about what you eat. Even if you are poor, cannot afford to purchase your own food, and must rely on government help, that does not give a bureaucrat the right to make such decisions for you.

Personally, I think the existing restrictions on food stamps should be removed. If people want to purchase chips, candy, and steak with their government allotted stamps, that’s their choice. Certainly, it is a bad selection that has negative impact on the family in question, but it is their choice.

While this particular cause will most likely be championed by so-called conservatives, it is really extremely liberal. It is big government, just one with which conservatives happen to agree. This apparent paradox is quite consistent with what I observe about our current political divide. Principles mean nothing, it is simply a matter of what is expedient to whichever party you imagine is on your side.

When we cede power to government over the individual we slowly erode our freedom. Do you agree with government deciding on the food we eat? Even if it doesn’t affect you but simply the poor people who, for whatever reason, are dependent on government aid?

Tom Liberman

President Trump and the Friendship with Kim Jong-un

Posted on by

jong-unPresident Trump and the Wall Street Journal are disputing whether he used the word “I’d” or the word “I” in reference to his relationship with the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un. As a writer I find the use of words to be interesting and important. At their base, words are nothing more than sounds. However, these sounds are used to convey meaning and thus using the right words in particular circumstances can make a huge difference.

The disputed quote is as follows: I (I’d) probably have a good relationship with Jong-un. The quote using the singular “I” is the one touted by the Wall Street Journal while the one using “I’d” is that the White House and Trump claim is accurate. Let’s examine the different between the two.

If the Wall Street Journal is correct, Trump thinks he currently, most likely, has a good relationship with Jong-un. This statement is optimistic considering the two have engaged in a war of words from even before Trump came into office. Trump has called Jong-un by various derogatory names and the Supreme Leader of North Korea has returned the favor. Their relationship appears to be antagonistic.

On the other hand, if Trump’s version of the sentence is correct it means that under different circumstances he imagines he and Jong-un would have a good relationship. The exact nature of this other world is not explicitly stated but I’d guess it involves a situation where North Korea is not attempting to build Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles capable of dropping nuclear warheads on the United States.

What I find absolutely fascinating about this story is the vehemence coming from both sides considering the irrelevance of the difference. Whichever words are accurate they amount to exactly the same, horrific, thing. Jong-un is the leader of the most repressive, violent, and least free nation in the world. He has ordered the murder of his uncle, half-brother, and many others. His people live in abject poverty and worship him as a living god. He lives lavishly with many luxuries while many of the people in his country are starving to death. Trump believes he either does or could have a good relationship with this person.

I can state unequivocally I could not, under any circumstances, have a good relationship with Jong-un. He is the perpetrator of literal crimes against humanity. Were I President of the United States I would deal with him as the leader of another nation. I would attempt to negotiate a better way for his people, but I would not, I could not, have a good relationship with him. Anyone who imagines they have such a relationship, or actually has one, with Jong-un clearly does not understand the nature of this man. Someone who thinks they have a good relationship with Jong-un is sick. Their mind is diseased.

The thought of the suffering in North Korea directly and indirectly attributable to Jong-un makes me physically ill. The thought of those millions of people suffering unnecessarily induces rage. The idea of him enjoying conspicuous luxuries and total freedom while denying even basic amenities to the people is nauseating to me. He is a vile person, possibly the worst excuse for a human currently alive.

It matters not if Trump is deluded enough to think he does have a good relationship with Jong-un or whether he only imagines he might have one; it shows a disturbing detachment from reality. No decent human could possibly imagine they have a good relationship with such a monster. To do so is to ignore the suffering engendered by Jong-un, to pretend the world is other than it is.

I ask you, could you have a good relationship with Jong-un? Would it be possible with an understanding of what he has done, who he is?

I hope the answer is no.

Tom Liberman

Aleppo vs Binomo

Posted on by

binomoSome comedians pranked United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley and it’s not all fun and games. The comedians asked Haley about a fictional country named Binomo. Haley indicated she knew about Binomo and was looking into Russian activity into their recent elections. There is no Binomo. What’s not funny about this is how Gary Johnson was treated when asked about the Syrian city of Aleppo. Let me compare the two incidents.

Johnson was the Libertarian candidate for the United States Presidency and was engaged in an interview when asked a question about Aleppo. The topic of conversation was not the Middle East and the insertion of Aleppo was largely without context. Haley was engaged in congratulating who she thought was the Prime Minister of Poland when asked if she was aware of the situation in Binomo. Like the Aleppo question, it came largely without context. In both cases the person hearing the word did not know exactly what was being discussed. That’s all fine and good. I mishear people all the time, particularly when a new topic comes up without warning.

It’s the reaction to the incident that tells us everything, not necessarily about Haley and Johnson although it speaks intrinsically to the values they hold as humans, but the response of regular people. Haley pretended she knew what was being talked about. She gave vague, politician friendly answers. We’re watching that very closely. I’ll report back to you when I find out more. She lied. Johnson simply asked for clarification, What’s Aleppo? The fact he used the word ‘what’ instead of ‘where’ clearly shows he was confused as to the reference. When it was made clear what was being discussed was a city in Syria, he went on to answer the question fully and cogently.

The fallout from the Johnson incident largely eliminated him from serious contention for the presidency although I suspect he had only small chances even without the event. Haley will suffer not at all. Those who support her will laugh it off as nothing and those who don’t will call for her to be fired. Nothing will happen and all will be as it was. That’s a shame.

If the people of the United States actually had the values they claim to have, Johnson would have been lauded for admitting, with a simple question, he didn’t know what he was being asked and needed clarification. Haley would be shown as a liar who is happy to pretend knowledge when she has none. This is testament to morality and ethics far more than proclaiming belief in one deity over another.

I’m quite certain if we presented these two cases as a hypothetical to a large audience there would be an almost unified conclusion. The person who doesn’t understand a question but pretends they do is clearly unethical. The person who readily admits they didn’t understand something and seeks clarification would be considered the better human. It’s unquestionable which answer was ethically and morally correct.

If Haley is too egotistical to even ask for clarification on the question presented by the comedians, what does it say about her character? What won’t she lie about? The answer is clear, lying is second nature to her. She does it without thought and great skill. This is who we apparently want leading us. We don’t want someone who honestly tries to find solutions but prefer a liar who glibly and with charm pretends to know things she or he does not.

Character is actually important but it means nothing when it comes to securing elections. I shouldn’t go that far, having a strong moral character does mean something, it means you’re going to have a very difficult time getting elected. And then we wonder what’s wrong with this country.

There is an enormous gap in perception in this country. The gap between admiring what we know to be ethical traits and our willingness to vote for those who don’t display them.

Aleppo vs Binomo is just but a single, stark example.

Tom Liberman

How Regulations Destroy Small and Medium Businesses

Posted on by

regulationsPeople generally assume regulations are a burden on all businesses in general but the reality is that large and enterprise companies are far less affected because of their greater resources. Thus, small and medium sized businesses are the only ones hurt. As if the small competitor didn’t have enough trouble already. It’s my opinion a great number of regulations are working exactly as planned, to benefit political allies.

You have to remember who pays the bills. Enterprise businesses bribe, I mean to say contribute, to politicians on a much larger scale than is possible for smaller businesses. When new regulations come down the pipeline they force all companies to perform a great deal of documentation to prove they are doing things correctly. Bigger companies can handle these costs much more readily and thus small producers are forced to sell their business. It’s an accelerating trend that has created carnage in the once influential small business world. I won’t get too deeply into statistics but since the 1980s small businesses have contributed less and less to the total economy of the United States.

An article I recently read about the 5,000 plus regulations that apply to apple farmers is case in point. There are regulations on scanning the entire orchard for mouse dropping before the start of the work day. Shoe to ladder to hand. While the Trump administration has reduced some regulations, they’ve also vastly increased regulations in regards to foreign workers so help does not appear to be on the horizon.

The reality of regulations is they drive out small players and aid enterprise business. Even if you support many of the regulations it is impossible to deny the evidence of their affect.

Another quite interesting factor in all of this is the standards applied by wholesalers often outstrip those applied by the government. If you want to have Whole Foods sell your produce, they require a lot of assurances about quality and safety. This means a double burden in which not only must government regulations be followed and thoroughly documented, but a second set of rules must be adhered to in order to make it to market. This, again, is to the advantage of larger operations.

I question the necessity of many government regulations at all. Let’s take the mouse droppings rule as an example. It’s certainly possible mouse droppings might make their way from the ground to a ladder to the hand of a worker and hence to an apple. The regulation requires workers walk the entire orchard each day before harvest looking for mouse droppings. This is obviously unreasonable, even for large operations. This regulation is doing nothing to prevent mouse droppings from migrating to your apple simply because it is an impossible rule to follow.

I’m not entirely against various regulations, I think there needs to be far fewer of them and they need be better written. The bottom line in the case of apples is to ensure those going to market aren’t going to make people sick. The simplest way to do this is test a random apple or two from various batches for salmonella or whatever else might cause disease. I admit this is not a perfect solution as the stray disease-causing apple will slip through the net, but that is no different than with current regulations. Citizens of the United States are sickened by food on a fairly regular basis.

Nor am I arguing against the executives of enterprise business, they have every right to conduct their companies as they choose. The problem is the majority of regulations, well-intentioned or not, basically work against smaller operations.

We want a business to succeed because they do something well, not because they are aided by the government against competition. Fewer, smarter, and better regulations is a winning recipe for the smart business owner and the consumer.

Tom Liberman

Why Are Law Enforcement Officers Risking Their Lives McKesson Makes Billions?

Posted on by

mckesson opioidsI just read another story about the so-called War on Drugs involving one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, McKesson Corp. The company generated almost $200 billion in revenue in 2017 and recently agreed to pay a $150 million bribe, I mean fine, to the government for essentially selling enormous amounts of opioids to warehouses that were in turn supplying drug dealers, legal and illegal. McKesson paid this bribe rather than having executives go to prison and having distribution centers shut down.

I wonder what law enforcement officers think about this. They are on the front-line of the phony War on Drugs. They are risking their lives every day investigating, confronting, going under-cover, raiding, and arresting those they suspect of dealing drugs. They have largely destroyed their relationships with the communities they serve in the attempt to stop illegal drug use. Meanwhile the federal government, and many state and local entities, are filling their coffers with drug money obtained by providing people with opioids.

It seems fairly apparent to me that law enforcement officers are being used to suppress competition to the drug companies and provide revenue to local, state, and federal government agencies. They are being paid some small salary as a bribe to risk their lives in order to enrich a bunch of people sitting around counting money and laughing at them.

Drug companies like McKesson provide billions of illegal pills to the market because it generates huge revenue. I respect this part of the equation. As a Libertarian I think all drugs should be legal. McKesson should be perfectly free to market and sell their product to able-minded adults as much as they desire. However, at the same time, they are asking law-enforcement agents to sacrifice their well-being and even their lives and this does not meet with my approval.

As an example; McKesson was distributing upwards of 2,000 pills a day to a small town in Colorado with a population of 38,000 people. This was not an isolated incident. There is an enormous demand for opioids and this market generates huge amounts of money. The drug companies, doctors, pharmacists, and others see this and provide product. Meanwhile they are using law enforcement agents to crack down on other groups doing the exact same thing.

Government in the United States is quite clearly financially dependent on the illegal drug trade. There are many jobs that would not exist without the illegal drug trade. The entire investigation into McKesson likely involved tens of thousands of hours of work and many millions of dollars. Local and state government are likewise financially tied to the illegal drug trade. If all drugs were made legal it would be an enormous financial blow to the government.

I wonder how long the people who are putting their lives on the line are going to put up with this contradiction? I’m certain many of them honestly believe they are doing something good in attempting to interdict the illegal drug trade, they do not realize there are being used as dupes in a much larger game and are making the situation much worse. That’s a shame.

We are not engaged in a War on Drugs. The government is happy to collect money from drug dealers, illegal and otherwise. Drug companies make billions but so do many ancillary organizations like the penal system. Law enforcement officers have a role in all of this. They are complicit in the tearing apart of communities, families, and people.

When will they say enough? That’s up to them.

Tom Liberman

What Turkey Purchasing Anti-Aircraft Missiles from Russia Means

Posted on by

turkey purchases russian missilesThe nation of Turkey just purchased a sophisticated anti-aircraft missile system from Russia and I’m willing to bet it’s just a tiny story way down on whatever news site you frequent, if it’s there at all. It is a far more important story than most of those you are reading. Turkey is a member of NATO. By and large, the purpose of NATO is to counter the threat of attack from Russia. So, this purchase is a sign of a significant shift in that nation’s commitment to the organization.

Turkey has, until now, purchased most of their military hardware from the United States. It is estimated there are about fifty nuclear bombs at Incirlik Air Base and that base is an immensely important strategic staging area giving us the ability to project force into the region.

This purchase further cements the idea Turkey is turning away from NATO and welcoming the overtures being made by Russian President Vladimir Putin. As our relationship with Turkey continues to sour there is every possibility the United States will lose one of their most important allies. Without Turkey as a supportive ally the entire Middle East is dramatically destabilized. If Turkey quits NATO, something I see as a real possibility at this point, it will be a disaster from which the organization will not easily recover. Turkey has the second largest standing military force in NATO.

What is happening is a direct result of our meddling in the politics of the region, particular siding with Kurdish forces in the war against ISIS although there are other reasons as well.

The recent problems between the United States and Turkey started in 2016 when a dissident living in the United States, Fethullah Gulen, may have attempted to orchestrate a takeover of that country. Turkey certainly believes he did although the United States refused extradition without better proof. The biggest blow to relations between the two countries has been the continued arming of Kurdish forces helping to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq. These forces have long been considered a terrorist organization in Turkey where they have killed approximately 37,000 people in various operations since 1984. The Kurds are now allowed an autonomous territory in northern Iraq and plan a referendum to declare independence. Such a vote will put the United States in an extremely difficult position. In addition, our declaration of support for making Jerusalem the capital of Israel has further destabilized relations.

The upshot of all this political maneuvering and battlefield conflict is Turkey is moving away from the United States, Europe, and NATO and toward Russia. There is a large Islamic population in Turkey although, for now, the country has remained secular in the courts and military. The purchase of these missiles from Russia, which cannot be integrated easily into the existing anti-aircraft systems, further confirms the movement of Turkey away from the United States and toward Russia.

I cannot strongly enough point out how our meddling in these situations invariably comes back to haunt us. We backed the Kurdish fighters primarily because they were one of the most effective military forces in the region. It seemed to our leaders that backing the Kurds to defeat ISIS was the best strategy.

I think most of our politicians were so frightened by the emergence of ISIS that this policy seemed correct. Before agreeing we must ask ourselves how ISIS became so powerful in the first place. That outcome was almost exclusively the result of our war in Iraq. The war was conducted to make us safe from the potential of weapons of mass destruction. How had Iraq had grown so powerful in the region? Well, because we backed them against our enemies in Iran during the wars between those two nations. We feared the growing power in Iran. Why is Iran considered an enemy? Take a wild stab at it: Because we backed a coup in that country and installed a brutal dictator because we feared a populist takeover.

Are you seeing a trend?

We enact policy after policy intended to make the United States safer while meddling in the politics of country after country and in so doing make our lives markedly less secure. Every time we act in this manner we alienate people in the affected nations, people who eventually come to power. Our politicians convince us these actions are a method to making us safer and yet, time and again, the actions end up resulting in more danger.

Our current leaders are now selling increased meddling in more and more countries. Those who support such activities have convinced themselves it makes us safer. If you support such policies, I urge you to look at the historical record. It’s not good.

Tom Liberman

Government Fails to Save us from Silver Dragees

Posted on by

silver drageesI just learned a rather astonishing fact. Those little silver balls, dragees, you often see on cakes and pastries during the holiday season are for decorative purposes only. The United States government does not allow them to be served for consumption. Presumably if you did so, you’d be subject to imprisonment or a fine. Well, a lot of people I know should be in federal lockup, which is the point of my article. What good does banning silver dragees do?

To me this is a clear illustration of the responsibility of government as compared to what is actually happening. If the government has evidence silver dragees are dangerous, they are considered edible in Europe so I’m guessing the science isn’t conclusive, what are the options? People are going to put them on desserts no matter what and some people, me included, are going to crunch away.

I have no problem with government alerting people to the potential dangers of silver dragees and warning against eating them. That’s fine. That is the role of government. I’d support research on the subject funded with taxpayer dollars and a website illustrating the issues. However, it is when the government tries to enforce these suggestions with actual laws that we run into all sorts of troubles.

In only one state, California, are the silver dragees illegal to sell. Everywhere else you can sell and use them as long as you remove them before serving. Good luck with that. This law does several things, none of which I suspect the government was hoping to achieve.

First: It puts a huge financial strain on companies that do business with silver dragees. California is an enormous market and losing it is not an insubstantial hit to profits. This hurts these businesses and the people who work there.

Second: It creates a potential black market in California for the items. People from neighboring states will smuggle illicit bags of dragees into the state and money will be funneled to criminal enterprises. I’m not certain if this is happening but I see no reason why it would not be so.

Third: The people of California won’t have pretty pastries. It takes away from the esthetic pleasure of looking at them. This might seem trivial but it is a big issue for me. The government is basically taking away from the pleasure of people who might well use the dragees without consuming them. Let’s assume they are dangerous to eat, there is still no reason to make it illegal to put them on cookies. It reduces the quality of my life, even if by an insubstantial amount.

Fourth: It creates an enforcement nightmare. California is presumably devoting policing resources to visiting retails stores and pastry shops to ensure they are in compliance with the law. They might even be raiding homes this Christmas to ensure no one is putting dragees on their cookies. Then there is the time spent in courts prosecuting the scofflaws who dare to put them on their pastries.

I know all this sounds a bit ridiculous and far-fetched but the War on Drugs is, for all practical purposes, a large-scale example of this issue. Every problem I’ve illustrated here has done much to destroy our way of life in the United States when it comes to drugs. We have spent enormous amounts of money interdicting drugs and locking up those who choose to use them. This cost is not just in money but in human potential, human lives. I’ll leave off the War on Drugs comparison to the ban on eating dragees but the two issues are related.

By the people and for the people. That is the idea behind government. It is one of the jobs of government to protect its citizens but when government becomes financially invested in protecting its citizens from their own decisions, they are not making our lives safer, they are merely heading to a totalitarian state.

Tom Liberman

Net Neutrality and all the Hype

Posted on by

Net NeutralityThere is a lot of news about Net Neutrality these days and the people who are proponents are incredibly passionate while those who are against are quite determined. The current administration and the Federal Communication Commission seem bent on eliminating Net Neutrality and tout all the benefits of doing so. Those who oppose fill my Social Media with diatribes and examples about how the internet will be destroyed. Frankly, it’s a lot of hype on both sides.

I’m not going to make this a long dissertation on exactly what Net Neutrality is and is not. Instead I’d like to focus on the idea it just won’t make that much of a difference either way. In doing so I understand I’m going to make enemies on both sides of this passionate debate, so be it.

There is a single factor causing the majority of the problems we have with our internet providers, the lack of competition. This dates back to the monopolies granted to cable providers. Basically, territories of the United States were broken up and given to single companies to provide cable access. These monopolies largely continue to exist across the country.

There is a distinct lack of competition in the industry and this means consumers have few, if any choices, about whom provides them with internet access. This means the power largely resides with the companies rather than the customers. They can apply any sort of rules they want and their customers have nowhere else to go. Thus, if an internet provider decides to throttle customers or block particular content there is nowhere else for the consumer to go, they must simply accept the status-quo.

It’s extraordinarily important to note prior to 2015 Net Neutrality was merely a concept that many internet providers followed simply because it made good business sense not to anger their customers. There are some choices in the industry and providers voluntarily gave open content and access to their customers in an effort to provide good service.

There were some exceptions but when they came to light, consumer pressure generally forced the provider to change the policy, it was not government enforced Net Neutrality that did anything, at least before June 12, 2015 when the provisions were accepted by the FCC.

If we had strong competition in the field then Net Neutrality would most certainly be a negative concept. If we had many choices and a company was not providing us with a good service we would simply go elsewhere. Once you get a bad meal at a particular restaurant, do you go back? Of course not, there are far too many good choices. It is the lack of competition that makes it appear we need Net Neutrality. The problem was created by the government, mainly municipal and state, in creating monopolies in the first place. The answer isn’t to enforce Net Neutrality but to open the market to competition.

The reality is enforcing or repealing Net Neutrality in our current situation isn’t going to do any harm or any good. We didn’t have Net Neutrality prior to 2015 and things were fairly much exactly the way they are now. Removing Net Neutrality is not going to bring the benefits claimed by those who oppose the concept. Keeping it is not going to fix the current problems we all have because of the lack of competition.

The proof seems obvious to me. Prior to 2015 we did not have Net Neutrality. Can you tell the difference? I can’t.

In other words, it’s much ado about nothing.

Tom Liberman

Does Government Need a Search Warrant for Cell Phone Location Records?

Posted on by

search warrantThere’s an interesting case before the Supreme Court involving law enforcement agencies gaining access to information about where you have been traveling without a search warrant. In essence, your cell phone knows where you are at all times. The question is if that information can be turned over without the normal protections provided by the Fourth Amendment.

The case in question involves a person who was found guilty of robbing a series of Radio Shack stores. Police obtained records of who knows how many thousands of people, without a search warrant, and correlated data to determine who was close to all the stores on all the dates of the robberies. Certainly, this aided in catching Timothy Carpenter but also gave law enforcement officials access to the traveling habits of tens of thousands of people who did not commit a crime.

No one is arguing if the police suspected Carpenter they could not obtain a search warrant to his cell phone records and find a correlation between his movements and that of the robberies. The question is if they can get everyone’s records, anytime, for any stated reason, and comb over them.

The danger of government being able to know your precise location at any time is fairly evident. What if a government official wanted to know if their spouse was cheating on them and with whom? What if you offended a government official and they wanted to learn if you were cheating on your spouse, or frequenting a casino, or who were you friends so they might question them on your potentially unsavory actions?

The possibilities are limitless and I think it’s ridiculous to assume everyone in government has your best interests at heart. There are vindictive and violent people in government who could and would use this information to hurt people.

Some people reason if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t worry about it. I could not disagree more. If I am not a suspect in a criminal investigation, if reasonable cause cannot be argued before a judge; where I go is none of the government’s business. The government should not have free and unfettered access to my purchases, my movements, or my possessions.

The Fourth Amendment exists for good reason and we must be careful about allowing exceptions.

Tom Liberman

Should We Tax Sugar to Reduce Obesity?

Posted on by
Tax Sugar

A new study suggests taxing sugar is a far better way to control the enormous cost associated with unhealthy citizens of the United States than product specific taxes. I have no problem with the conclusion of the study, it’s most likely correct even though it is based on simple economic models rather than actual implementations. I do, however, have a problem with using taxes to control the behavior of citizens.

Let’s assume it is completely accurate to forecast an obesity drop and a correlating reduction in the diseases that come from being overweight; heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, and others. If this sugar tax was put into place we could expect to see a substantial savings in healthcare costs associated with the treatment of all those disease. We’d see fewer missed workdays. There are any number of societal benefits to a healthy population, this cannot be denied. I’m all for these results if not the methods.

Arguments Against

We know for a fact the producers of sugary drinks will see the cost of their products rise. This is the desired outcome. When the price rises, people stop purchasing. Well, at least some people. The reality is many people continue to drink such beverages but now have less money to spend on other things, perhaps a new cellular phone or deck for their house. Each dollar we take out of consumer’s pockets must be accounted for on the scale. Thus, the effect on many industries is negative, not just the sugary drink providers.

Arguments For

What are some of the arguments against such taxes? There are certainly undesirable impacts on the sugary drink industry but these negatives are presumably offset by gains in other places. If people move away from sugary drinks they will move to something else. Perhaps they will purchase more tea or water. So, not a bad thing you might say. I’d say, yes, very bad thing. The industries so benefiting have a competitive advantage against the sugary drink companies brought on by government intervention, capitalism has been subverted by crony capitalism. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the attempts to tax soda and the funding for studies like the one I referenced earlier were not coming from such industries. When the government becomes involved in which company succeeds and which company fails; then such businesses are forced to attempt to corrupt government as a means of survival.

The idea of taxes in general is to support government programs. We pay a gasoline tax largely to fund road related services. In this case there is no correlating service. We’re merely doing it to try and get people to behave in a way the government thinks best. This deeply offends my Libertarian ideology.

When the Government Gets Involved

I think it is important to consider the government’s role in milk and cheese production. Our tax dollars go to these endeavors including advertising campaigns. The consumption of such food is not necessarily healthy. If we trust the government to promote or demonize one thing, we cannot be upset when they do so for many different things. This is my biggest problem with a sugar tax. By empowering the government to tax simply to engineer a particularly desired behavior, we essentially give them carte blanche to promote any such behavior.

I do not think it takes a leap of logic to understand that unscrupulous business owners will immediately look to subvert this supposed altruistic process. They will immediately, let’s be honest, they are already, attempting to get government to work for their industries.

Even when the government is right, sugar filled drinks and food contribute to obesity and we should probably be eating and drinking less; we cannot allow it to act as an agent for or against a particular industry. The more government has the ability to shape our purchasing habits, the more it will become corrupted by industry.

In essence, the government will simply become a corrupt agent of particularly industries. This is not its intended role. Sadly, I’m of the opinion we are well on our way to such a state of affairs. It does not bode well.

Tom Liberman

The Case Against Sanctions

Posted on by

sanctionsWhen the leaders of a nation decide they want to act in a way the United States perceives as detrimental, the general solution is economic sanctions. The idea being that such sanctions hurt the offending nation and politicians eventually give up on their policies. What I’d like to discuss today is what really happens when we implement economic sanctions on another nation.

One of the main arguments against such sanctions is the leaders of the nation don’t suffer any impact but the average person in said country is economically disadvantaged. The argument for sanctions hopes the people will blame their government for lack of goods. Unfortunately, I think it is much more common to blame the nation imposing the sanctions. It drives a country deeper into behavior we dislike. However, this objection is the least of my troubles with sanctions.

One of the biggest problems with sanctions is that, like a sword, they cut both ways. When we limit trade with a foreign nation we are now preventing companies within the United States from making a profit by selling to willing buyers. As an example, I have a number of family members and friends who work for Boeing and they are hurt by the fact their employer cannot sell goods to quite a few countries in the world. For many companies, this is certainly the difference between growth and hiring and shrinkage and layoffs. There is no question all the economic sanctions we are currently prosecuting badly hurt industry in the United States. How much business could be, and should be, done with Cuba?

Another enormous problem is there is largely a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy when it comes to sanctions. When we ban selling or purchasing a product from a particular nation it hardly stops such activity. It simply pushes it underground. Many of the companies and nations who supposedly support such sanctions actively work around them in a variety of ways, chief among them is simply maneuvering and repackaging product.

Basically, if we aren’t allowed to sell something to a country, that product is shipped to a third-party nation that does trade with the proscribed country and the commodity is simply packaged in a container to disguise its point of origin. And, of course, the reverse happens in purchasing such goods. The offending country ships things to a willing nation who then repackages and sells back to the United States.

The second problem leads to the third, which is the creation of a black market where criminals gain huge profits at the expense of regular consumers. The moving of these goods must be done by extralegal sources or officials who are taking bribes to perform the necessary maneuvering. Now we are empowering criminals and corrupting officials. The product should be shipping at a certain cost but the price goes up because of the sanctions. Thus, when you purchase a product that might somewhere on the supply chain pass through the country with sanctions being imposed against it, you pay an increased price.

Likewise, the illegal maneuvering to avoid sanctions leads us to the fourth problem: Enforcement. Thousands of people and billions of dollars are spent trying to prevent nations and companies from maneuvering their goods in an attempt to avoid sanctions. We have agents at ports around the world inspecting packages and trying to make sure they actually come from the country of origin the packaging claims. This costs taxpayer directly, as opposed to the more indirect cost of higher prices.

Highly trained law enforcement officials spend their days and nights trying to figure out how nations and corporations are avoiding the sanctions when they could well be doing something more useful. The amount of time and money spent trying to enforce sanctions is astronomical.

The final point of my argument against sanction is they simply do not work. The nation in question continues functioning in a fairly normal way. They continue to sell their goods to willing buyers; either nations that have not imposed sanctions or through a black market.

Sanctions apparently do no good whatsoever, cost us huge amounts of money, waste the time of highly trained professionals who could be doing something else, generally harm the average person of the offending nation thus cementing their hatred of the United States, corrupt officials, funnel money to criminals, and cause an increase in the price of the goods you purchase. Yay!

Let’s take a quick moment to look at the results if we continued to trade with nations who we consider our enemies. Our companies make a profit, the people of those nations look at us more favorably, we pay lower prices, and there is an opportunity to open lines of dialog to bring about the change we are attempting to create through sanctions.

It’s a natural reaction to want to punish nations we think are behaving poorly but a better strategy is to engage. Better for everyone.

I ask for all sanctions, to all countries, be dropped immediately.

Tom Liberman

Best Intervention for Fyre Festival of Pizza

Posted on by

pizza-festivalA fellow named Ishmael Osekre organized a pizza tasting festival in New York City which is being compared the failed Fyre Music festival held in the Bahamas. I’m not going to get into detail on the failings of the festival, suffice it to say serving tiny slices of cold, miserable pie to a New York pizza savvy crowd is going to be a disaster. What I’d like to discuss is the best remedy to this situation? Social Media? Government?

The first avenue is that of Libertarian dreams, Social Media. Such Gotham users are in an uproar about the event. Facebook, Twitter, and more are alive with people complaining about the scam and demanding their money back. The organizers eventually promised to create a makeup date but that is doing little to appease those wronged. As one of those aforementioned Libertarians, I’m quite pleased with this turn of events.

That being said, there are realities to embrace. Osekre might well pack bags and depart, leaving everyone out not only the money they paid but also the time they spent attending the event. In addition, such visitors might well have done something else that day of greater value. Social Media can certainly shame such a fraudster. It can spread the word so that the perpetrator will have a difficult time attempting the same in the future.

However, it is still quite possible for Osekre to change names, move to another city, and attempt the scam yet again. Each time he might steal money from those who want to attend such festivals. I think Social Media makes this far more difficult, but it is still possible. This is where government enters the picture.

Alerted to the travesty by Social Media, the Attorney General of New York is investigating and considering charges. Legal remedies are something beyond the power Social Media. If Osekre collected money but did not provide the expected service, that is a crime called breach of contract. Even if the festival was created in good faith but Osekre simply underestimated the popularity, the people who paid money were still defrauded.

My question then becomes; what is government going to do about it? The courts might well find Osekre guilty of a crime and sentence him to prison. They might order him repay the festival goers. The thought of punishing Osekre with imprisonment certainly appeals to the vengeance part of my brain. The possibility of people getting their money back is certainly a reasonable outcome. I’m not convinced people will ever get their money back. The money is probably already largely spent and there is little way to recoup the losses.

It seems to me there is room for both remedies and one creates justice where the other fails, they complement one another. We live in this brave new world in which the collective has far more power than it ever has in the past. Prior to the advent of the Internet and the rise of Social Media, scam artists like Osekre could simply travel from place to place perpetuating the same crime again and again. It was up to government to stop such fraudsters.

In the past government often failed to do so. In fact, government not infrequently became complicit with the fraudsters as long as they were cut in on a share of the profits. This sort of thing still happens on a fairly regular basis. Social Media can force government to be held accountable in a way never before seen in human history with the notable exception of violent revolution. In the same way, Social Media can hold criminals such as Osekre accountable for their crimes, or at least make it far more difficult for those like him to continue on with their nefarious schemes.

To my mind, this is a wonderful synergy. Government and the people working together to implement justice. This dual defense brings us perhaps as close as we’re ever going to get to true justice. Count me in.

Tom Liberman

Hurricane Irma and Government Hysteria

Posted on by

hurricane-irmaHurricane Irma has run much of its destructive course and I wanted to take a moment as a Libertarian to discuss the government reaction to the approaching storm and why I think it was a ridiculous overreach.

The storm was huge, it caused massive amounts of damage as it approached the United States. A number of people on islands in the Caribbean were killed. There was and remains danger. The question becomes what is the responsibility of government in situations like this? The moment I was pushed over the Libertarian Rant Cliff was when avowed small-government Republican Governor Rick Scott declared in no uncertain terms, “You cannot survive this.” He was referring to the storm surge that could potential swamp many areas with water.

I’m quite comfortable calling that statement a hysterical lie spewed by a politician who has completely lost track of what it is he is supposed to be doing. Hurricanes are inherently unpredictable. There was a chance the surge would be relatively small, which it ended up being. Many people, of course, survived the surge. Not only was the statement completely wrong, hey we all make mistakes, but it was clearly a lie designed to frighten people into behaving the way the governor thought they should act.

This is what government has become in our nation. People in positions of power not only think they know better than us, but feel the need to frighten us with hysterical proclamations and enact draconian legislation. I’m happy to say at least the police and national guard were not marched through neighborhoods forcing people from their homes. At least the governor has that amount of decency left.

Let’s discuss what a responsible politician should have said. The storm is extremely dangerous. If you decide to remain in the area, here are some are some websites that show you how to properly protect your house. Here is a list of items you should purchase based on the size of your family. Emergency crews are going to be overwhelmed and cannot be counted on to rescue you in a timely fashion if the worst predictions come true. You are in charge of your own life, not me. You have all the information available and I trust you to make the best decision possible.

The danger of Governor Scott’s proclamation is there is certainly going to be another hurricane in the future. The fact that many people hunkered down and survived makes it clear his proclamation was fear-mongering idiocy, those people are likely to ignore warnings in the future. Those stupid politicians are always preaching disaster and it’s never as bad as they say. The reality is sometimes the worst predictions do come true. Sometimes there is horrific danger. If politicians create an environment where they are considered overreacting fools, people stop listening to them when there is real danger.

One of the main Libertarian mantras is that the job of government is not to save us from ourselves. I have no problem with the government issuing warnings, explaining the dangers that confront us, but I draw the line at hysterical nonsense like that Governor Scott spewed. You, Governor, do not know what is best for me. Even if you did, it’s not your responsibility to force or frighten me into doing what you want. I’m an adult, treat me accordingly.

Tom Liberman

 

Trump: Tweet in All Caps and Drop the Stick when Challenged

Posted on by

president donald trumpPresident Theodore Roosevelt was fond of what he called a West African saying, Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick. It largely meant policies designed around negotiation, openness, forethought, and careful proclamations but backed by a willingness to fight if the people on the other side of the table are not willing to treat you with equal respect. President Trump seems to believe in the polar opposite of this strategy. He Tweets loudly, rudely, in all caps, with brazen threats, but when presented with real opposition backs down.

There are two important aspects to Roosevelt’s political philosophy and the Speaking Softly is a critical element of success. It is this idea I would like to examine today. If you’ve ever watched an action movie, we almost universally see the humble hero trying to avoid a fight and working towards reasonable solutions while the villain uses brute force, taunts, and bullying to get her or his way. The reason for this is obvious and a diametric visualization of the difference in styles between Roosevelt and President Trump.

The problem with President Trump’s abandoning the Speak Softly part of the equation is that it largely destroys the Big Stick. When you antagonize and attack anyone that opposes you, they have several options. They can back down before your threats, they can ignore your threats and carry on with their business, or they can become belligerent back at you with their own sticks.

The Tweet in all caps strategy ensures that more and more nations and domestic opponents of President Trump are going to test the big stick. There is no doubt the United States has the biggest stick on the playground; that being said, the more you use the stick the better chance there is that it will break. You don’t want to resort to such unless it becomes absolutely necessary. President Trump relishes in threatening to use the stick. Whether he carries through with the threat or not; the stick inevitably becomes smaller and weaker.

Another problem occurs when your stick isn’t nearly as big as you think it is. President Trump doesn’t have many, if any, good options in dealing with North Korea. His bluster simply emboldens them to do things like shoot ballistic missiles over Japan. This is everything except a declaration of war. Trump promised the stick if North Korea continued firing missiles and not only did they do so, but they did it in a much more dangerous fashion, actually crossing over the territories of Japan. Imagine if Russia fired a nuclear capable ballistic missile that crossed over part of the United States!

Another problem arises from the fact that Japan, and other allies, begin to see us as impotent. Japan has the ability to become a nuclear nation with an aggressive military. The fact that they should take such steps is something they must consider seriously at this point. If we can’t be counted on to protect them, they must do it themselves. Some might argue that as a good thing but there is a history of Japan as a military state that you might want to consider.

Turkey is currently angry at us over the arming of Kurds in the attack against ISIS in Syria. Without the Incirlik Air Base our options in the region become severely limited. Russia is currently courting Turkey in hopes of strengthening relations.

I don’t want to get too far afield from the point I’m trying to make here. To summarize; the Big Stick part of the equation doesn’t work nearly as well if you are unwilling to Speak Softly. President Trump appears to be incapable of Speaking Softly. It’s all bluster and threats. This has dangerous repercussions. Either he is forced to use the Big Stick far too often or he backs down from the inevitable challenges.

In either case it cannot possibly be a foreign policy that will result in safety and security for the citizens of the United States or the world.

Tom Liberman

Mercenaries in Afghanistan

Posted on by

mercenariesThere is an interesting proposal percolating at the White House in which the United States would withdraw our formal military operations in Afghanistan and use mercenaries as a replacement. These private contractors would support the government in its war against the Taliban. Naturally, there are a lot of strong opinions about this idea.

I’d first like to dispense with the idea of private contractors. What we’re talking about is mercenaries, plain and simple. These are people hired to participate in a conflict who have no national motivation but are simply in it for the money. We can use all the euphemisms we want in order to paint a particular picture, but reality is clear to see.

The United States has been fighting the war in Afghanistan actively since 2001. It began supposedly in response to the September 11th attacks against the United States. The war has had its ebbs and flows but by no measure is the United States winning. The Taliban controls large swathes of the country and our soldiers largely act to support the Afghanistan government rather than taking an active role in combat.

One of the major reasons officials are considering switching to a mercenary force is the cost savings proposed by doing so. It is estimated it costs about $1 million per soldier per year to continue the fight in Afghanistan. The exact costs are unclear but it’s probably safe to say we are spending in excess of $45 billion a year on the conflict. The mercenary solution would supposedly cost around a quarter of that although I’m highly skeptical.

The two arguments for such mercenaries are they will be cheaper and they will be more effective. The arguments against them generally revolve around the idea that fighters not under the discipline of the United States military command are more prone to atrocities, that they will do anything in order to further the cause of victory. I think there is merit to all of these arguments but, to be frank, it just doesn’t matter.

The United States military is largely just one big mercenary force at this point. We don’t fight wars to keep our nation safe, we do so in order enrich the coffers of whatever contractor produces military equipment. Said contractor then pays for vacations, dinners, tickets to events, and various other luxuries our leaders enjoy.

We don’t fight wars to defend the nation but we create them in order to further what President Dwight Eisenhower called the Military-industrial complex. We don’t have soldiers in hundreds of far-flung bases in the interests of national security, we do so to pour taxpayer dollars into the coffers of allies who in return offer their political support.

There is a very good reason we’ve been fighting this pointless and losing war for the last sixteen years. There is good reason we will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, money. The Founding Fathers would not only have balked at the idea of this endless war but they would have fomented revolution of the people to put an end to it. Our soldiers are being sacrificed in both mind and body in the pursuit of money.

This push for a mercenary force is simply a tacit acknowledgement of what we already know. The United States military is nothing more than a hired gun, used by nations around the world to do their dirty work. Every soldier who volunteers for our military should do so with the understanding they are being used by the government to do the work of a mercenary at a cut-rate salary. They are being sacrificed to put money on the table of those who provide the equipment used by the soldiers.

It’s not about winning the war in Afghanistan. It’s probably never been about winning the war in Afghanistan. It’s about politics, money, and ego. To my way of thinking, there is little difference in using my tax dollars to pay soldiers wearing the uniform of the United States and paying the salaries of mercenaries.

The business is war, and it’s booming.

Tom Liberman

Time to Kill the Recess Appointment

Posted on by

Recess appointmentThe President of the United States is granted the power to fill vacancies that occur when the Senate is not in session. This is called a Recess Appointment. It’s clauses like this one: Article II, Section 2, Clause 3; that remind me why it’s so important that the Constitution has a mechanism by which it can be changed.

The Constitution orders the Senate to provide advice and consent for certain appointments. The reason the Recess Appointment clause exists in the first place is simply because, early in the history of our country, the Senate took recesses of anywhere from six to nine months out of each year. If a vacancy occurred in this period, a position might go unfilled for a considerable time.

The situation is quite different today. At most, the Senate takes a two-month vacation and usually not even that long. Any vacancy can now be filled fairly quickly. In addition, advances in communication and the speed of travel means the Senate can reconvene for an emergency session with less than a couple of days’ notice.

Unfortunately, what has happened in recent times is that various presidents waited until the Senate went on recess in order to make an appointment they felt might not pass successfully through that body. In the current situation, the sitting President is speculated to be considering the idea of creating a vacancy during a recess simply in order to fill it without advice and consent of the Senate. Both of these behaviors are clearly perversions of the original purpose of the power.

If this is allowed, it seems to me the Senate can then by bypassed completely. The President can appoint someone pleasing to the Senate, wait until just before the recess, fire that person, and then bring on whomever they desire without a confirmation. This can be continued on for the entirety of the term.

That’s why it’s time to remove that particular clause from the Constitution. Times have changed and the Recess Appointment is no longer necessary or needed. Amending the Constitution is a thing not to be taken lightly and it requires either a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives or a two-thirds majority of votes by the states. Yet, the power to do so is there and it is there for good reason.

The Recess Appointment clause is being abused and it must go. It’s really as simple as that.

There is one other solution. I don’t think we’ll see it, but there is some possibility the President of the United States could treat the Constitution with the respect it most certainly deserves. The President of the United States could stop looking for ways to pervert the Constitution and simply abide by its clear intent. Only use the Recess Appointment when an important vacancy comes up naturally; usually death or serious illness.

Tom Liberman

The Election Integrity Commission Spawned by Circular Reasoning Fallacy

Posted on by

election integrity commissionAh, what danger we weave when first we practice to use Circular Reasoning. President Trump believes he won the popular vote but the tally indicates otherwise. This means there must be something wrong with the count. This means we now have something called the Election Integrity Commission which will suck up millions of dollars, vast resources, and most certainly violates the spirit of the Constitution of the United States if not the letter.

I, Tom Liberman, am always right.

How do you know, Tom?

Because I said so and I’m always right.

As ridiculous as that sounds, this sort of logic is the reason we have the Election Integrity Commission.

Trump absolutely believes he won the popular vote in the election, his hubris will not allow any other explanation. He said as much on any number of occasions. Each state is in charge of how they choose to assign their Electors, as is expressly declared by the Constitution of the United States. Without exception, they use popular voting as this method.

The various states don’t believe there is any significant voter fraud. There is certainly no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Therefore, they are largely refusing to turn over to the federal government any of the information they have gathered in regards to voting. They view it as an overreach. I agree.

The problem here all stems from circular reasoning. Trump believes something for which there is no evidence. This becomes a problem for a man with an apparently unshakeable belief in his every pronouncement. When we say something that is wrong, our first tendency is to attempt to support the statement when others refute it. When the person trying to support an almost certainly suspect premise is in a position of power, we get things like the Election Integrity Commission. If this doesn’t worry you, then you’re reading the wrong blog.

A person who appears ready to violate the Constitution of the United States in a vainglorious attempt to support what is almost certainly an untrue statement is a dangerous figure. I realize that I’m stepping on dangerous legal grounds when I assume the request made by the commission for information about the voters in the various states is unconstitutional. I don’t have a background in Constitutional Law. I could be wrong about a legal violation but I’m certain I’m right about a violation in spirit.

The federal government is not supposed to be meddling in how states run their elections and for good reason. How an election is conducted is under the purview of the state.

I’m not completely naïve, I know the United States has had special commissions created not to find truth, but to spread unwarranted seeds of doubt. That being said, this is the first time I recall such an investigation being a direct attempt to prove as true a presidential misstatement. This is the first time I’ve seen Circular Reasoning from the President of the United States send so many people scrambling into action.

The danger here is manifest. If the government feels obligated to force its version of the truth on the people of the country, we are living in dangerous times. Trump, or any other politician, can say as they please, it is only when their actions threaten me that I become alarmed. What concerns me about this is not so much the Election Integrity Commission, it is certainly stupid and I’m glad most states are refusing to cooperate, but the long-term implications of a head of state who not only cannot admit a mistake, but must manufacture, via dubious Constitutional actions, a truth that fits the narrative.

I hope it concerns you as well.

Tom Liberman

 

Malaysia Steals, Australian Gifted, United States Steals

Posted on by

jho-low-malaysia-chronicleA fellow by the name of Jho Low worked as a financier in Malaysia. He is accused of taking money from a fund called 1Malaysia Development Berhad. He then used this money to buy jewelry for Australian actress Miranda Kerr. Now the United States has taken her jewelry as stolen property.

I suppose, on some level, I understand the general idea that someone who steals something should pay back what was stolen. The reality is that is not how the justice system works. If someone murders someone there is no way to give life back. The majority of crimes cannot be dealt with in an eye for an eye fashion. We have a criminal justice system that weighs the various crimes and assigns penalties based upon them. This is our attempt to arrive at justice.

I’m all for justice, but this sordid series of events is anything except. Let’s follow the trail from beginning to end. The Malaysian government controls 1Malaysia and puts money into the fund from revenue generated by taxes. This is money that belonged to people in Malaysia and was transferred to the government.

Now, the money was siphoned off to individuals like Low to be used not for the benefit of the people of Malaysia, but for him individually. He used this money to purchase jewelry from various suppliers. These suppliers sold him the jewelry at a fair market price in good faith. They received money for the jewelry. Said jewelry was then given to Kerr while she and Low were dating.

As a gift of tremendous value, it is treated as income. Essentially Kerr had to report these gifts and their worth to the Australian government who certainly taxed her at the appropriate rate. It is largely the same as earned income from a tax perspective.

Now the United States government has forced Kerr to turn over the jewelry to them. In addition to the jewelry they’ve seized other assets worth approximately $1.7 billion. Why the United States is involved at all is not clear to me, but I’m guessing the assets in question were purchased in the United States.

So, from what I can deduce, the government of Malaysia stole a bunch of taxpayer money from its citizens and now the United States has stolen the property purchased with this money.

What would be justice? Quite simple. Return the items to the sellers in exchange for the money paid for the goods and then give that money back to the taxpayers of Malaysia. Anybody think that’s going to happen?

Now, it certainly wouldn’t be a perfect solution as the gifts have likely depreciated since their original purchase but it would be more just.

The way things stand we simply encourage foreign governments to rinse and repeat. Steal a bunch of money from taxpayers, buy lovely things, pay taxes on the purchases, pay taxes if they are gifted, use them for a while, and then give them to the U.S. government.

All we’re doing is collecting money from the stolen goods at every step of the way. That money no more belongs to the United States than it does to me. The worst part is this isn’t unusual. Local, State, and Federal government steals from thieves all the time. They call it seizures but it’s nothing more than theft.

Will the United States pay back the taxes collected on those purchases? Will Australia? Will Malaysia? Will we give the original money back to the citizens of Malaysia? They are the only victims here and they are not recompensed in any way. Everyone else makes a profit and one or two scapegoats will spend a few years in prison.

That’s government for you.

Tom Liberman

Facebook to Remove Posts from when you were a Minor

Posted on by

facebook kidsThe latest nonsense from government is a proposal to force Facebook to remove all posts made prior to your eighteenth birthday. It’s making its way through the English Parliament and has the support of the Queen who announced its existence in her speech on June 21.

Fine, I think it’s a silly law, but why? Let me clarify, because that’s what people who are interested in real conversation do. We don’t just tell you you’re an idiot and move on. We explain why you’re an idiot and listen when you explain why we’re wrong.

My first objection is all about freedom and liberty. I’m free to delete any post myself. Now, I agree the current system of having to delete posts one at a time rather than in bulk by date should be updated, but there is no way we should be allowing a Facebook algorithm to delete millions of posts automatically.

Breaking news, I’m old enough that when I turned eighteen Facebook, Social Media, and the World Wide Web simply did not exist. None of my pictures are going to be deleted. It’s not a concern of mine, but if I were one of the affected parties, I’d be angry my pictures were being deleted without my permission. There’s no way the government should be in charge of that decision. And let’s not blame Facebook if this law is enacted. It’s not their fault. It is simply the government telling me any pictures I posted before I turned eighteen are potentially dangerous for me.

This leads me to my second issue with this proposed law. It is part and parcel of a mantra that makes me literally sick to my stomach: We’re doing it to protect the children. No, you’re not. You’re doing it to force your misguided sense of morality onto the rest of us. I can’t even begin to count how many times I’ve heard wannabe fascists claiming they want to take away my freedom because they are trying to protect the poor, helpless children. The children are always the excuse and my freedom is always the victim. I’m not buying it.

It also insults everyone under eighteen. Basically, the law is telling them they might do something foolish, therefore we’re going to protect you from yourself. My experience is that quite a few people under the age of eighteen are far less foolish than many adults I know. Sure, some kids post photos that might embarrass them later in life, so do many adults. The government can’t protect us from such self-inflicted damage nor should they be trying to do so. Parents should monitor their child’s Social Media posts, not the government.

My fourth objection is less philosophical and more practical. Every post that anyone makes is available to be Shared on Facebook. It is available to be posted to other Social Media platforms. It is available to be copied and stored forever. Trying to delete something that’s been out on the internet is pretty much closing the proverbial barn door after the cows are out. It is not going to work.

So, let’s recap. The legislation takes away the freedom of adults by automatically removing pictures they might well want to remain in place and which they could relatively easily remove themselves. It is an excuse for government to intrude on our lives in the name of helping children. It insults the very children it is intended to protect. In the end, the pictures will probably still be out there.

Yeah, it’ll probably pass.

Tom Liberman