Mike Gundy and Kids Today Nonsense

TMike Gundyhe head coach of the Oklahoma State football team, Mike Gundy, is not happy the young football players under his charge are allowed to transfer from his school to another without his permission. Gundy made his displeasure known by claiming, among other nonsense, that kids today don’t have the toughness to stick with difficult things.

Hey, I can just do what I want and I don’t have to really be tough and fight through it.’ You see that with young people because it’s an option they’re given. We weren’t given that option when we were growing up. We were told what to do, we did it the right way, or you go figure it out on your own.

This is not the first time I’ve heard an older person wax poetically about their youth. How they all paid attention to their elders, how they all knew right from wrong, how all kids today are spoiled and soft. How it was my way or the highway world. It turns my stomach every time I hear it. First off, Gundy is a liar. He knows darn well he, and lots of young people he knew, did not always do what they were told or do things the right way. That coaches often cut them slack. It’s utter crap and everyone knows it. You know it, I know it, and Gundy knows it.

Young football players work harder and longer at their craft than kids did when Gundy was at school. The National Championship team of thirty years ago would be blown off the field by a good team today. The players are stronger, faster, and most importantly, far more educated in their craft. I say this not as a knock against former players, who were great kids also, but they didn’t have access to the training resources available today.

Young players today spend countless hours studying film. When you explain to a football player why this technique in this situation is better and then show them on film, you get better players than if you just say, do it this way. Not only do the kids work harder but having an understanding of why they are doing something makes them better players and better humans. Kids today have lots of stick to it, just as much as kids from bygone years.

As for the underlying reason for Gundy’s moronic statements; the fact a football player can’t simply decide to go to another school without the permission of the first school is antithetical to all my Libertarian thoughts. Coaches can, and frequently do, transfer schools without permission in chase of higher paychecks. The young football players just want a chance to play. Most transfers occur because the player in question is not getting playing time in his or her current situation.

Can you switch jobs without getting your current employer’s permission? Answer me that and then explain what about your personal life philosophy wants to take that freedom away from others.

Kids today, they’re great. Adults with bad memories and a chip on their shoulder, not so much.

Tom Liberman

JR Smith, a Tattoo, and the NBA

JR Smith TattooA fascinating story involving basketball player JR Smith, his new tattoo, and the National Basketball Association is making the rounds on various news sites this morning. Smith got a tattoo on his leg depicting the company logo for an apparel company in New York called Supreme. The league has a rule against players displaying company logos on their body or shaved into their hair.

I have several problems with this rule. In the first place I think a player should be able to put whatever they want on their body and the league should have no say in the matter. I go as far as saying if an athlete wanted a swastika, a racist term, a misogynistic image, or anything else offensive on their body, that’s their business. Now, a particular team has every right not to sign such a player, that’s the team’s freedom to decide.

My second problem is the rank hypocrisy of the rule. The NBA makes an enormous amount of money through its various endorsement contracts. The Nike logo currently appears on the jerseys of the teams and all sports leagues have similar financially lucrative deals. For them to be pulling in money hand over fist and deny individual players the same right when it comes to a tattoo strikes this Libertarian as grossly biased although certainly legal. The players have all sorts of their own apparel contracts in which they support various companies and are financially remunerated for doing so. Why shouldn’t this apply their own body, the mostly uniquely individual and privately-owned thing of all?

My third issue is that the NBA has allowed several players with tattoos to play without fines for the last few years. This means they are engaged in selective enforcement of their rules. I’m not sure if it has to do with the fact the tattoo is of an apparel company as opposed to a television show but one has one’s suspicions.

In the end, the league is free to make their own rules and that’s a good thing. I just wish people and organizations would realize the freedom they enjoy to do as they please should extend to everyone else as well. JR Smith’s freedom is my freedom.

Tom Liberman

What do Unused Water Bottles in Puerto Rico say to You?

Water BottlesThere’s been an interesting image of a large number of water bottles sitting on a runway in Puerto Rico circulating throughout the news and my social media feeds. It shows tens of thousands or perhaps millions of water bottles sitting on a runway apparently unwanted and unused. What conclusions have you drawn from this event? I’m going to tell you what conclusions I originally drew and then what I found out when I investigated the issue.

Government waste of my tax dollars. Some stupid government agency either ordered way too many water bottles, didn’t arrange for transport of the bottles to needy citizens of Puerto Rico, or simply forgot about them and left them on the runway. Then I did some research. In my original guess as to what happened I thought it was one of three stupid things; surprise, it was all three.

FEMA purchased, loaded, shipped, and unloaded far too many water bottles. The water bottles on the runway were not needed. FEMA didn’t release the water bottles to the government of Puerto Rico until they had been sitting in the open, exposed to the elements, for months. FEMA didn’t make any arrangements to distribute the water. Finally, someone noticed the water and contacted FEMA, who released them to the government of Puerto Rico, who then began to distribute them but found the water was fouled by its exposure. So, there it sits. Now someone has to clean it all up, again, using tax dollars.

Yay! Government hard at work as usual. Is it any wonder the disaster relief in Puerto Rico and other places has been less than stellar in its execution? I’m not saying disaster relief is an easy thing to do. There are many moving parts and a huge amount of coordination is required. We need professionals in charge of this sort of thing, not people who raised a lot of campaign dollars and want a nice salary. People suffer because of failed government and my tax dollars are given to bottled water companies for no good purpose. At least those businesses are happy.

My final question is to you. What did you assume when you read the story about those water bottles? Something different? Don’t lie.

Tom Liberman

Does Ticketmaster Mind Scalpers Breaking Rules?

TicketmasterThere’s a fascinating story in the news involving Ticketmaster being complicit in scalpers reselling tickets. The idea is simple enough, Ticketmaster has a service called TradeDesk in which people who have tickets sell them to willing buyers. The problem is TradeDesk is largely a way for scalpers who purchase tickets on Ticketmaster to resell them at higher prices.

Why is this problem? At first glance it doesn’t seem as if Ticketmaster is doing anything wrong. They sell the tickets to whoever is first to purchase them and then are involved in the resale at a higher, or lower, price. This is obviously lucrative for Ticketmaster as they get a percentage of all sales; essentially, they are profiting twice off the same product. However, thanks to some undercover work from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it seems Ticketmaster is making it very easy for scalpers to purchase large numbers of tickets to events before the public has a chance to do the same. Ticketmaster has a rule in which no one is allowed to buy more than a small block of tickets but they essentially ignore it when scalpers bypass it.

Thus, people who want to purchase tickets to an event never really have much of a chance and are forced, if they still want to attend, to buy the higher priced tickets at TradeDesk. Sales representatives for Ticketmaster told undercover investigators they pretty much were facilitating such transactions. The company is denying the allegation and said they are looking into the practice. They claim they attempt to stop such large purchases to the best of their abilities.

This entire thing intrigues me from a Libertarian perspective. Let’s imagine Ticketmaster doesn’t have the rule about blocks of tickets. Then what we are seeing is capitalism in action. The event promoters generally set the ticket prices and if resellers are able to get a higher price, it’s likely the promoters set the original price too low. That’s their bad. The scalpers are merely capitalizing on a mistake. The risk is all with the reseller. If they misjudge and have to resell the tickets at a lower price, because there is little interest for instance, they lose money.

I totally agree Ticketmaster is not being transparent if they are, indeed, allowing scalpers to purchase large blocks of tickets with the intent of reselling in violation of Ticketmaster rules. The reality of the supposed crime is more complex. Even if Ticketmaster cracks down on large blocks of tickets being sold to a single user, I’m fairly certain the scalpers will refine the technology they use to call and order and still scarf up the majority of the tickets.

Is it fair to the average user who just wants to go to the concert or see the game at the price of the original ticket? No. That’s clear. Then again, such a viewer can simply choose not to spend the extra money for the resold ticket.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman

Have your Starbucks Coffee any way you Want

Starbucks CoffeeIs there a wrong way to order Starbucks Coffee or a bagel? That certainly seems to be the conclusion of the great democracy that is the internet. My various social media outlets have recently been filled with people ridiculing other people for exactly how much flavored sugar they want in their coffee or what sort of strange toppings they want on their bagels.

It’s more than just outrage. It seems to my degreeless psychological perspective that people manage to inflate their self-esteem because they don’t order that many pumps of Cinnamon Pumpkin Cotton Candy in their Starbucks Coffee or have the audacity to put capers on their raisin filled bagel.

I find what other people eat to be disgusting at times and my non-oyster and non-sushi loving friends certainly don’t pay me compliments when I ingest two of my favorites. Does this make me better than them or them better than me? Does it really make any difference whatsoever what someone else chooses to eat?

I remember as a young lad being somewhat disturbed when a friend mixed a bizarre combination from the soda fountain at a fast food restaurant. I remember something more important as well. Some of my other friends started to ridicule the choice my first friend made and that struck as being wrong. I wasn’t a Libertarian back then, or at least I didn’t know about the concept of being one. I’m fairly certain I didn’t fully understood why it bothered me, but it did.

Now that I’m older, and presumably wiser, I know it is makes me the lesser person when I make fun of someone, pretend I am better than someone else, simply because of the strange soda blend they choose to drink. If someone enjoys a Starbucks Coffee with a million pumps of sugar in it, then let them enjoy it. Yes, it’s not particularly healthy. Yes, it sounds vile.

It’s quite easy to ridicule other people for their choices in life. Try to refrain. Sometimes people make really dumb decisions. I’d say someone who drinks a Starbucks Coffee with an outrageous amount of sugar in it is doing themselves no favors health-wise. All that sugar doesn’t taste particularly good to me but their drink is not my problem.

To sum up, don’t be so quick to judge other people. Spend more time worrying about how you conduct your own life. Part of a being a decent human being is to stop denigrating everyone who does something differently than you.

Tom Liberman

Why is the United States Placing Cyanide Devices in Western States?

M-44 Cyanide DeviceThere’s an interesting legal case ongoing about a device called a M-44 Cyanide device which is used mainly in western states as a way to control coyote populations. One of the devices injured a young man from Pocatello, Idaho and killed his dog.

There are two elements to the situation that intrigue me. First is the case itself and second is the reason Wildlife Services places the devices at all.

The case is interesting in that the boy’s family describes the incident in which he was injured in a way that is largely impossible. They claim it exploded when he touched it but it has only a spring-loaded mechanism. It sprays cyanide when an animal bites the scented end and pulls with force.

The assumption here is that Canyon Mansfield likely did more than simply touch the device in order to set it off. That is the government’s argument for why they won’t pay damages. It’s probably true. They claim the Mansfield was negligent in handling the device and responsible for his own injuries.

Still, if I were in charge of the case I’d make the payment. It’s not going to set a precedent. People aren’t going to run out and mishandle the devices in order to get settlements. No one wants to be doused in cyanide.

The second thing I find interesting, from a Libertarian point of view, is why we are using the devices at all. Since the 1930s the United States has been placing the devices in order to kill coyotes and wild dogs. The M-44 Cyanide device killed over 12,000 coyotes in 2016 alone so they are clearly effective. This is out of the 76,000 the service killed overall. The reason we are killing such animals is they are a threat to livestock. Naturally they also kill pet dogs on occasion and at least 22 such animals were killed between 2013 and 2016.

I’m certain the Wildlife Service argues that far more pets and livestock would have been killed by coyotes if the devices were not used. My question is why is the government killing so many coyotes on public lands? The reason is simply because the United States leases these lands to ranchers in western states. The ranchers have livestock on the land and the government is spending your tax dollars to protect those animals.

This is at the heart of a number of problems, some of them having engendered major headlines in the last few years, associated with federally leasing such land. The ranchers depend on the land to feed their livestock. Without that land they couldn’t produce much of the beef we eat. Many of them have come to think of that land as theirs. However, if the land was owned by the ranchers they’d have to spend money to keep it up. As it stands, the government does all that work for them although the price of the leases mitigates the cost to some degree.

Basically, the government is killing millions of animals each year, yes, the number is that high, essentially to help out ranchers. There is pretty good evidence much of the killing is unnecessary. If the ranchers owned the land themselves they would probably carry out killings as well but because they don’t have an essentially unlimited budget, they’d probably only kill as many as necessary to protect their investment.

So why does the government own all this land which is being used largely by private industry? If you thought this problem was complex before, we haven’t even gotten started yet. That being said, I’ll give it a rest. I won’t bore you with the Bureau of Land Management, Native Americans, Public Land as a whole and the issues therein.

It’s not an easy issue to solve. I’ll say that much at least. Democrats largely wouldn’t want to turn the land over to private industry and Republicans largely wouldn’t want to force the ranchers to own and maintain that land. So, here we stand.

Tom Liberman

Rich Give Almost Fifteen Billion in Charity Despite Crony Capitalism

Charity GivingThe nation’s top fifty donors scraped up $14.7 billion to give to a charity this past year. What sort of things are the rich trying to do with their money? How can we encourage them to give more?

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation alone donated $4.8 billion to charity organizations with a large hunk of it going to education. Educational organizations dominated the donations this year. The reason largely given is that it’s vital to have an educated workforce in the coming generations. Menial jobs are going away and highly skilled positions are going unfilled.

It won’t surprise you to learn that the biggest donors these days represent Technology Industries. They have supplanted finance donors in recent years and they, more than anyone, know their source of income is being generated by skilled workers. Without such workers, their income evaporates. It is in their interest to have educated workers but it is also in the interest of the people getting an education. A symbiotic relationship that highlights the ideas of Enlightened Self-Interest and Rational Egoism. In other words, charity isn’t just helping someone else.

At its heart is the idea: What is good for me is generally good for those around me. Anyone who runs a business isn’t going to do well without good employees and customers with ready cash. At least it used to be that way. We’ve perverted things in the United States with Crony Capitalism.

Business leaders today also spend a great deal of their money attempting to bribe, that is to say finance, politicians in their campaigns in order to influence policy. The reason business leaders do this is that political leaders determine the success and failure of business through legislation. Politicians hold the reins and with the stroke of a pen can promote one business and destroy a competitor. This forces businesses to spend money buying influence instead of running their company.

The cause and effect relationship here is infinitely interesting to me. The ostensible reason politicians were given this ability to regulate business is the impression that corporate leaders are going about their jobs in a manner detrimental to the consumer. Politicians must save us from such evil! This, in turn, led to businesses becoming overly involved in politics. It was a matter of survival.

Despite having to give enormous sums of money to politicians, these fifty people still managed to donate nearly fifteen billion to charity. I wonder how high that number might be if they didn’t have to worry about bribing, I mean donating, to politicians. If politicians can’t decide the fate of a business, then business leaders don’t care who is elected. They can go about improving their company. This means giving customers what they want and training better employees.

What started with good intentions, regulating egregious and criminal business practices, has become egregious and criminal of itself. If my competitor gives more money, that business will win through the efforts of legislators who don’t care about good products or educated workers. They create winners and losers with regulations.

We didn’t solve the problem, we made it far worse and have taken away who knows how much money from charity in the meantime.

If the solution is making the problem worse, it’s not a solution at all. Something to think about.

Tom Liberman

Terrell Owens and the Football Hall of Fame

Terrell OwensTerrell Owens was recently elected into the National Football League Hall of Fame and, in an unprecedented move, has decided to skip the induction ceremony where he would normally give a speech. He is the first living NFL player to do so. The best thing about this story is the reaction of Hall of Fame President, David Baker. That’s what I’d like to discuss.

First a little background information. Owens is clearly worthy of selection with statistics that stand up with the best wide receivers in the history of the game. He had a cantankerous relationship with the press during his career, some undoubtedly his own fault, and it is those writers who vote on candidates to the hall. They did not choose Owens in his first or second year of eligibility and that is what rankles him. He is of the opinion they did not respect him during his career and then used their position and their dislike to delay what was certainly a deserved honor.

People can, and certainly are, taking Owens to task for his pettiness in refusing to attend the ceremony. Many people don’t like Owens and are not shy about making nasty comments. Others support him and his decision and they do not hesitate to make their opinion of the various writers involved known.

But it is what Mr. Baker is saying and doing that tickles this Libertarian’s fancy: He’s got a mind of his own, he’s a grown man and we need to respect his right to make that decision. Baker goes on to say: If he doesn’t come to the enshrinement, he’s welcome here every day for the rest of his life. Our job is to honor the heroes of the game.

Mr. Baker, if you are not already a Libertarian I hereby formally extend an invitation to our little group. His attitude is, to some degree, the embodiment of what I think it means to be a Libertarian. Every person has a right to make their own decisions, even if these are childish, petty, and ultimately self-destructive. This stands in stark contrast to what I see everywhere in the United States these days. In almost every article I read it seems people from the President of the United States on down think they know best what others should do and that laws, rules, social pressure, and who knows what else should be brought to bear to make everyone else stand in line.

This is wrong. When it is choice between personal liberty and an action that does not directly harm others, we should almost universally choose freedom. No one is being harmed by the fact Owens will not be attending the Hall of Fame ceremony. We should respect his decision even if we disagree with it. Certainly, we can suggest another course, we can ask why he is doing so, we can point out the potential problems, but in the end, it is his life to lead, not yours.

Mr. Baker might have sought to punish Owens by refusing to put his banner up at the ceremony, not having images of Owens at the stadium, cutting video of him in television promotions, and who knows what other method of coercion. A lesser person might well have done all those things. Mr. Baker chose otherwise.

Well done, Mr. Baker. Well done, indeed.

Tom Liberman

Papa John Schnatter Assumes Colonel Sanders was a Racist

Colonel SandersAn interesting story making the rounds these days involves the founder of the Papa John’s Pizza chain, John Schnatter, who assumes Colonel Sanders was a racist. This assumption appears to me to be based solely on the fact that the restaurant chain Sanders founded, Kentucky Fried Chicken, is from the south and that Colonel Sanders was therefore clearly a racist who must have often used racially charged language.

From everything that I can find about Colonel Sanders he was a plain-spoken fellow who didn’t hesitate to criticize and had little good to say about the changes that took place at Kentucky Fried Chicken after he left. While owner he was known to push food onto the floor in surprise visits to chains if it didn’t meet his standards.

Yet I can find nothing indicating he was a racist or ever used derogatory language to describe minorities. That’s what I find so interesting in all of this. Schnatter seems to be under the impression every white man from the south is a racist. He figured, well, Colonel Sanders is from Kentucky, by the way he’s from Indiana, and he was a white man, so he probably said terrible things and got away with it. I find that to be a disgusting insult to not only Sanders but to fine and decent people all over the south.

Yes, there are racists in the south and in the north as well. The assumption itself sheds light onto the character of Schnatter and also brings to mind a deeper issue we have in this country as a whole. People from the rural areas often assume people from urban areas are ill-mannered and irreligious. People from urban areas often think people from rural areas are uneducated and overly religious. People from southern states think people from northern states hate them and vice versa. People who are Democrats think Republicans are stupid and vice versa. None of these assumptions are true.

People are individuals which is, to some degree, the heart of Libertarian beliefs. I cannot and will not assume anyone is anything until I have seen them speak, read the words they have written, or spoken to them. A person’s geographic location does not define her or him.

It seems to me more and more people are unwilling to make the effort to understand other individuals and, because it is simple and easy, lump them into some negative category so they can dismiss them.

There are huge numbers of wonderful people all over this world and artificial divides created by those who profit from our hate keep us apart from one another. These assumption about each other prevent us from finding friends with whom to share our lives. All these assumptions are a terrible shame.

Screw you Schnatter and screw your assumptions.

Tom Liberman

Stormy Daniels and Selective Enforcement of the Law

stormy danielsStormy Daniels was recently arrested when patrons at the strip club she was dancing at touched her in a non-sexual way. This is apparently against the law in Columbus, OH. Daniels is in the midst of a lawsuit against President Trump in regards to sexual relations between the two. The arrest is an egregious example of selective enforcement the likes of which is destroying the relationship between the police and the citizens they supposedly serve.

The idea is simple enough. The state or local government passes a law and law enforcement agents are tasked with enforcing it. We have a number of problems in this case.

The first of which is the law goes against almost everything for which a Libertarian stands. If two consenting adults want to touch one another then the government shouldn’t be involved in any way. I understand laws against lewd behavior in public but the location of this offense, a strip club, is specific enough that no one who goes there is going to see anything they don’t want to see. Certainly, they can leave if they do.

The second problem is perfectly clear, Daniels was not the only stripper touched in a non-sexual way during the course of the evening. It is obvious dancers and patrons touch one another in non-sexual, and likely sexual ways, every single night at Sirens. Police went to this strip club on a night where Daniels was guest dancing with a very specific target in mind. They were going to arrest Daniels for doing exactly the same thing that happens at that club every night, a fact law enforcement agents happily ignore. I’d be shocked if a few such agents haven’t done a little non-sexual touching of their own while out of uniform.

This blatant hypocrisy is undermining the entire community with not only law enforcement agents but the government itself. The law is stupid, this is true, but the selective enforcement of said law is dangerous. This selective enforcement is why arrests of minorities for minor traffic violations and drug transgressions are much higher than arrests for white people even while statistics show quite clearly there is no such discrepancy in those that commit such crimes.

This is a police force intent on attacking, I do not use that word lightly, targets of their ire and using the law to punish those they don’t like. The Constitution of the United States spends a great many words attempting to ensure this sort of behavior doesn’t occur. The Founding Fathers were subject to such selective enforcement by English agents of the law. They well-understood the dangers it presents and eventually rose up and violently ended such enforcement.

This targeting of someone at odds with the President of the United States is particularly disturbing. Could anyone who speaks out against their local Congressperson be so beset? If you vote against the Senator that wins might you be arrested for some minor legal violation while those who supported the Senator do it with impunity?

This is not as big a stretch as you might imagine. Once it becomes evident to politicians they can use the courts and law enforcement agents to imprison their political enemies the path is clear. Sadly, they don’t see the inevitable conclusion to this trail, they merely realize the immediate gain.

Dictators, even ones who espouse democratic ideals, often find themselves at the wrong end of an angry mob. Mayor Ginther, now you know.

Tom Liberman

Why Hate Crimes and Unmasking Antifa Legislation Show Political Hypocrisy

antifaThere is a new piece of legislation making its way through Congress that proposes an extra fifteen-year penalty for people who commit a crime while wearing a mask, Antifa. There is already similar such legislation in many states and the federal government for people who commit a crime motivated by hate. Who opposes and supports such legislation shows us the bankruptcy of the ethical philosophy of both Democrats and Republicans.

The gist of the problem is that government is trying to give extra penalties to people who commit similar crimes for different motivations or because they are wearing a mask. So now we have three classes of assault. If you assault someone you have committed a crime and are punished. However, if you do the same and are motivated by hate, you get an extra penalty. If you do the same and are wearing a mask, essentially Antifa, you get an extra penalty. The crime is the assault; not the motivation behind it or the clothes you wear while committing it.

Largely, Republicans are opposed to hate crime legislation because there is no need for it. Assault is a crime in itself. There is no need to add the person’s motivation to it. Democrats are, generally, for this legislation because people who commit such crimes deserve longer punishment and hopefully that will deter them.

Largely, Democrats are opposed to Unmasking legislation because there is no need for it. Assault is a crime in itself. There is no need to add the person’s choice of clothing to it. Republicans are, generally, for this legislation because people who commit such crimes deserve longer punishment and hopefully that will deter them.

I’m confident you can see the tremendous hypocrisy in this situation and I won’t spend any more time on that. What I will talk about is the enormous danger the government presents to all of us when it attempts to legislate such matters. What the government is attempting, in both cases, is to legislate against groups they see as aligned against their interests. In one instance it is Democrats against white supremacists and in the other it is Republicans against Antifa.

In both cases such legislation doesn’t reduce the risk of violence but increases both it and the danger of armed revolution. If enough people feel the government is willing to make up laws in order to put them in jail, they will simply attempt to create a new government. We see this path throughout history. In the United States we have the ability to vote in a new government and have largely avoided violent attempts at revolt.

Our government seems increasingly willing to imprison those they see as political enemies. This course of action is expressly forbidden in the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eight Amendments all attempt to prevent the government from enacting such legislation. They do so not only to protect the people but to save the nation from the inevitable violent revolt that such imprisonments eventually engender.

A politician must not take sides in political debate. She or he must simply present arguments and persuade people to vote accordingly. Anything else tempts disaster.

Don’t be a hypocrite, be a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Landon Donovan should Root for Anyone and So Should You

Landon Donovan MexicoThere’s an interesting story in the world of sports involving Landon Donovan starring in a commercial that urges United States soccer fans to root for Mexico in the 2018 World Cup. There are fairly many people angry at the former star of the United States Men’s National Team and about an equal amount supporting him. I think this story has implications for all of us beyond sport that speaks directly to my Libertarian sensibilities.

The gist of this situation is relatively simple. The soccer, I’m going use soccer throughout this article rather than futbol, team from Mexico is the traditional rival of the U.S. team. The fans of El Tri include a number of hooligans and they have engaged in disgusting and distasteful displays against the U.S. team in the past. There is a great deal of animosity between the two teams. Because of these facts those who dislike or even hate the Mexican team feel betrayed by Donovan and his support for them.

On the other side is the simple reality that the U.S. team didn’t qualify for the World Cup this year leaving fans without a team to support. Mexico is our neighbor and many people who live in the U.S. can trace their heritage back to Mexico. These are reasons enough for many to embrace Mexico and wish them well in the World Cup.

For me, it’s not a difficult question to answer. I’m a St. Louis Cardinals fan and as such my feelings toward the Chicago Cubs is quite similar to many fan’s thoughts for the Mexican team. In the 2016 World Series I was most decidedly not rooting for the Cubs, darn it all.

Those who are lambasting Donovan might think this means I’m on their side in this debate, they’d be wrong. The most important factor in all of this are the concepts of liberty and freedom. I should root for and against the teams I want, and so should you. I have no say in your decisions. Whether or not you root for Mexico hurts me in no fashion and is none of my concern. Just as it was when my sister was rooting for the Cubs to break their long drought.

This simple understanding of freedom goes far beyond sports. If a PGA Tour player or a NASCAR driver doesn’t want to visit the White House when President Obama is there or if an NBA or NFL player likewise chooses not to go when President Trump is in residence, that’s their choice. It’s not my decision and I absolutely should do nothing to coerce anyone into adopting my position.

It is the same for whom you should cast your ballot. It is the same for how you choose to listen to the National Anthem before the game. It is the same for who you decide to marry, what gender your decide to be, which bathroom you use, or what chemicals you put in your body. Our lives would all be better if we stopped worrying so much about what other people are doing.

I respect your freedom to decide matters as you desire. I’d certainly appreciate it if you’d do me the same courtesy.

Tom Liberman

What Led to Twenty-Year-old Emily Weinman being Hit by Police

Emily WeinmanThere’s a viral video of a woman, Emily Weinman, being struck multiple times by a police officer that is making the news. Police have now released the bodycam video taken by the part-time officers who were at the crowded beach as extra security. Apparently, their job is to increase revenue in the region by harassing beachgoers.

Weinman is twenty-years-old and there were alcoholic beverages available where she was sitting. Officers didn’t actually see her drink anything. Despite this; they approached her, asked her age, shoved a breathalyzer in her mouth, and then tried to cite her for having drinks on the beach.

She was understandably upset at this bully tactic used by officers to extort money from citizens. Apparently, she wouldn’t cooperate and when they tried to grab her, kicked one of the officers. The video of him hitting her repeatedly is the result.

The problems here are many but the root issue is why police officers were trying to cite Weinman in the first place. It’s largely about revenue. The part-time officers are bullies most certainly. They enjoy enforcing their will on people unable to fight back. They are worse than schoolyard bullies. That fact is not the focus of this blog. What I’d like to try and convince people is these inane laws are driving a horrible wedge between law enforcement and the community they are supposed to be serving.

Who was in danger from Weinman having an alcoholic beverage near her? She clearly wasn’t drinking. We can be sure the breathalyzer came back negative, otherwise they would have ticketed her for underage drinking rather than simply having alcohol nearby.

The regulation itself is the problem and that is the case with so many laws. They are not designed to make us safer but simply to extract money from us. Most traffic laws are of the same ilk. Changing lanes without signaling, failing to come to a complete stop, running a red light at two in the morning when there is no traffic around.

Stupid laws of this nature give bully officers the opportunity to act out on their pseudo-sexual fantasies of dominating other people. If you don’t think the officers in question enjoy forcing other people to follow orders, you are sadly mistaken. There are plenty of wonderful officers out there who don’t try to enforce this nonsense. They are being slowly destroyed by their fellows.

The breakdown of trust between police and citizens results in terrible tragedies for all parties. The police are afraid, citizens are afraid. I belong to a number of Libertarian groups in which Anarchists make their feelings known. Well-armed and violence leaning anarchists. Police are enemy number one in their crosshairs, I don’t use that word lightly. We see this attitude growing in alt-right organizations as well.

The more trust breaks down the more society itself is harmed. What’s the solution? It’s certainly complex and there are many issues. Still, it is bad laws that drive a lot of it. The War on Drugs, the age restriction on alcohol and cigarette consumption, an absolute myriad of traffic laws. All of these things done supposedly for our safety but in reality, just revenue streams.

This leads us to the first step in solving this issue. Remove as many of the moronic laws as possible. This gives police less reason and fewer opportunities to harass and anger citizens. This in turn leads to better relations between the community and the law-enforcement arm of our government.

Our politicians have largely spent our municipalities and our states into bankruptcy. They can’t afford to pay teachers and need more revenue. How do they get it? By stealing from Emily Weinman.

Tom Liberman

The Warriors Libertarian Movie Review

The WarriorsIn my frequent YouTube perusals, I came across a wonderful video of the actors who played the Warriors in the movie of the same name riding a subway to commemorate an anniversary of the release of the film. It’s a wonderful movie and that means it’s time for a Libertarian Movie Review.

The film is set in New York which is broken down into many territories controlled by various gangs, much like the world is broken down into many regions controlled by various gangs, that is to say, nations. The Warriors, and most of the other gangs in the city, have come to Van Cortland Park under a truce to listen to the leader of the Grammercy Riffs make a proposal.

Cyrus suggests all the warring between nations over non-existent borders drawn on a map is an enormous waste of time and effort. Oops. I wrote that incorrectly. What I meant to say is: Cyrus suggests that all the warring between gangs over non-existent borders drawn on a map is an enormous waste of time and effort. He suggests it would be a much more profitable enterprise to work together for the mutual benefit of everyone.

Cyrus is shot and killed in the midst of his speech which essentially ends the truce. The Warriors are blamed for killing Cyrus and the rest of the movie tracks them as they attempt to make it back to their home base, Coney Island. They must battle various colorfully attired gang members including the iconic Baseball Furies.

The film is certainly action based but does a superb job of character development in that we learn about the various Warriors via their actions rather than any exposition. Ajax is wild and impulsive. The sort of jerk you hate on the other team and love when he’s on yours. Swan is a thoughtful and intelligent natural leader. Rembrandt is an artist who is unskilled in combat but valuable nonetheless.

Eventually the Warriors make it home where the duplicitous gang responsible for the death of Cyrus attempts a final vengeance before the truth can be discovered, only to be defeated. The Riffs exact their vengeance and acknowledge the martial prowess of the Warriors.

The movie has many qualities that appeal to a Libertarian. Particularly pleasing is the overarching theme against nationalism. The gangs do themselves no service by the constant warring when they would be better off cooperating. The idea of removing borders and working toward goals of mutual interest regardless of national origin, gender, race, sexual orientation or other artificial difference is also a major Libertarian policy point.

The biggest negative is when Cyrus appeals to the gangs to take over the city and defeat the local establishment. This will put them in power, simply replacing the existing structure with one that will be equally problematic. A more Libertarian ideology would have Cyrus appealing to the gangs to cooperate with the police and the establishment to make everyone’s lives better.

That being said, The Warriors largely exemplifies Libertarian ideology and I give it 4.3 Freedoms. Can you dig it?

Tom Liberman

Toke Back Mountain Banned by Feds

Toke Back MountainSan Francisco establishment Black Hammer Brewery has been ordered by the federal government to stop brewing Toke Back Mountain. Now, many people will look at this as a marijuana-based issue but for me it’s all about freedom and the government overstepping its authority. Toke Back Mountain beer is brewed with a hemp-derived extract known as CBD or Cannabidiol which is not an approved ingredient in beer.

The reason the federal government has a list of approved ingredients is for safety. At least that’s the excuse the government uses to enforce their rules on people just trying to make a living or drink a delightful beer like Toke Back Mountain. For example, on the LD50 scale, caffeine is more toxic than cannabidiol. Caffeine is an approved substance. This fact shatters the façade of reasoning proposed by the government.

I do not understand why the government should list what can and cannot go into beer. I understand putting deadly toxins into food and beverages is a bad idea, I’m just mystified as to how these regulations prevent such behavior. Anyone who did put something horribly toxic into a product would instantly be discovered because people were getting sick. The only brewer that would do such a thing is clearly of criminal intentions or potentially just really stupid. Either way the government regulations don’t protect anybody. I guarantee brewers insert all sorts of things into beers they don’t list, particularly with the huge number of microbreweries all over the United States. Thank you, Jimmy Carter!

People die from food poisoning all the time in the United States and across the world. It is a serious issue but one which government regulations largely do more harm than good. It is painfully apparent to me why the federal government of the United States feels the need to tell every brewer in the country what they can and cannot put into their beer. It doesn’t have to do with safety but with revenue collection and authoritarian control.

I’m not sure exactly what hoops are required to get a substance on the approved list but I guarantee it isn’t cheap. I do know that it costs a great deal of money to get a new flavor approved in the vaping industry. I imagine the brewing industry is the same.

This is the heart of most regulations, revenue generation, not safety. Black Hammer Brewery pays no small amount of money just to be able to serve alcohol legally, liquor license prices vary by municipality. The cost of these licenses and regulations is passed directly onto the consumer. When you buy a beer a fairly significant part of the money is going to government agencies in the form of licenses.

I don’t want to get too far afield from my original topic. The banning of the non-intoxicating substance like CBD is simply government overreach. The federal, state, and local authorities have no legitimate reason to maintain a list of ingredients allowed into beer. This list, and the enforcement therein, costs me money every time I purchase a beer. This is encroachment upon my freedom.

I’m aware it seems trivial and statists argue the government needs to protect us from beer that might make us ill. I disagree and I think it’s not petty at all. We allow this sort of overreach in virtually every aspect of our lives and it makes us less free and less safe.

The free citizens of San Francisco are no longer able to enjoy Toke Back Mountain beer. That makes me sad. And angry.

Tom Liberman

Kelly’s Heroes Libertarian Movie Review

Kelly's HeroesMy daily forays to various Internet website brought my attention to a movie I enjoyed years ago called Kelly’s Heroes. At the time I watched it I was probably of a Libertarian mindset but I had not really given much consideration to such ideas. That being the case, I thought a review of Kelly’s Heroes from a Libertarian perspective was in order. Let’s get started.

The movie covers a period of time in late World War II as the Germans are retreating from allied forces. The basic plot involves Private Kelly, portrayed by Clint Eastwood, and his attempt to recover a cache of gold hidden by the German military. He is a private because he was scapegoated for a failed assault taking place before the events of the movie. Here we see of the state punishing the individual for its own failures.

Kelly is bitter over this turn of events and his loyalty has shifted from patriotic support of the war effort to a more self-centered mindset. In this he is joined by supply sergeant Crapgame, played by the great Don Rickles, who is also not particularly interested in winning the war but rather enriching himself. This is a theme we see throughout the movie and includes the cynical captain of the unit.

Several scenes which were cut from the movie show soldiers for both the German and U.S. units spending their time with attractive women and trying their best to enjoy life amidst the horrors forced upon them by the war.

This attitude is best displayed by tank commander Oddball, played effectively by Donald Sutherland. Oddball has little interest in putting his life on the line for his country but the mention of riches quickly garners his attention and he joins Kelly and his band.

On the way, the realities of war are not ignored as several of Kelly’s cohorts are killed in an encounter with German troops.

As Kelly and the others battle their way through German lines to the gold their communications reach allied headquarters where Major General Colt, played by Carrol O’Connor, mistakes their enthusiastic quest for money to actually be fighting spirit. He applauds their efforts and wishes he had more soldiers with this kind of attitude. This directly speaks to Libertarian sensibilities as the quest for personal enrichment, be it money or other endeavors, is what drives people forward. The artificial substitution of patriotism and hatred of another people pales by comparison.

It is certainly true the Nazi threat to the world was great and real but that danger was driven by the same zealous xenophobia that led to the war in the first place. Although the allies and their soldiers were certainly on the “right” side of the war, they and the Germans were on the wrong side of motivational reality.

We see this stark reality when Kelly and the survivors of his band confront a German tank commander at the denouement of their quest. The commander, played by Karl-Otto Alberty, defends the hidden cache simply because he has been ordered to do so. He sees the U.S. soldiers as the enemy.

Kelly and his associates risk their lives to approach the commander and explain the reality of the situation to him. Once he understands what is inside the building, he quickly changes his attitude in exchange for a fair share of the loot.

Then, in what I consider the defining moment of the film, Kelly holds true to his word and allows the German tank crew to leave with their cut, despite the fact Kelly and his associates could easily cut the Germans down without repercussions. They are all people in this world and their loyalty to self-interest far surpasses their patriotism to any contrived state.

Without question, Kelly’s Heroes gets the highest Libertarian rating available. Five Freedoms with gold clusters.

Tom Liberman

Summa Cum Laude and Censoring Cakes in South Carolina

summa cum laudeThere’s a humorous story making the rounds of social media about a graduation cake that was censored for the word Cum in Summa Cum Laude. The software that prints the lettering on cakes had that particular word on its banned list. Cum is a common word used to describe the moment of orgasm.

The question I ask Publix market, or any other cake supplier, is why shouldn’t someone be able to have an obscene cake? Who does it hurt to have obscene, racist, anti-Semitic, politically incorrect, insulting, culturally insensitive, or otherwise inflammatory words on a cake?

Sure, if the Ku Klux Klan were to send a birthday cake to President Obama with vile and racist words written on it, that would be disgusting and all, but it would reflect badly on them, not the former president. If someone sends a cake with something horrible written on it to a rival, that is a testament to their own lack of decency.

Certainly, someone who received such a cake has every right to expose the sender to public ridicule. The sender might face consequences for making threatening statements. There are legal avenues available for pursuit in such situations.

That is all besides my main point here. Why should I not have an obscene cake for my upcoming birthday? Or a Summa Cum Laude cake? Who is hurt by such a thing? I am the one who wanted the cake or perhaps it was ordered by family and friends with a wicked sense of humor.

There are no laws against using obscene words when communicating with one another, unless the FCC decides to get involved. Don’t get me started on that outdated and irrelevant agency. I can write obscene words in this blog. I choose not to do so because I find delight in using my Brobdingnagian vocabulary to insult, demean, and otherwise humiliate without vulgarity those who annoy me.

Freedom is not always pretty and is most certainly vulgar at times. I’ve been called all sorts of names. I’ve had my intelligence questioned in crude ways more than once. People are not always nice to me, often in response to my various articles. I can take it.

If we allow people to have whatever words they want, including Summa Cum Laude, written on their cake, we completely avoid situations like the one in South Carolina.

This Libertarian implores the bakeries of the world: Let them have their obscene cake and eat it too.

Tom Liberman

Ban on Ice Cream Trucks in Elgin

ice cream truckBack in 1973 an ice cream truck hit and killed a child in the city of Elgin in Illinois. Dismayed by this horrible accident the politicians decided to ban ice cream trucks altogether in the hopes of preventing another such incident. Now in 2018 the ban has been lifted to much joy.

I’d like to examine this situation from a Libertarian perspective. It’s fairly difficult to find common ground amongst Libertarians but the general idea is less government and more freedom.

There is no doubt ice cream trucks attract children to them. They also move fairly slowly and block roads. There are risks of accidents because of the trucks. Going by the ice cream truck industry in St. Louis there is also a large amount of bribery of city officials and strong-arming of competition to get and keep licenses in the lucrative business.

What if the Elgin ban was taken up by the city of Chicago, the state of Illinois, or even the federal government of the United States. The ban was instated to protect children after all. Do we not see many other laws with the exact same logic applied to them?

This series of events would ensure people have slightly less access to ice cream. In this modern age you can order ice cream bars from Amazon and have it delivered to your door. You can purchase it at every local market. The inconvenience is relatively small. We the people would still have access to ice cream. This is the argument of statists for the most part. We are taking away a tiny sliver of your freedom for an incremental increase in safety. If there are no ice cream trucks, no children will be struck and killed by them.

It’s true no children were struck by ice cream trucks in the ensuing years but there is no way to know if any would have been without the ban. The real impact was the people in Elgin were not able to purchase ice cream from such trucks. People in surrounding communities were able to do so. The ban had other consequences as well. It not only prevented people from purchasing ice cream but also gave ice cream vendors in fixed locations a competitive advantage. It prevented companies from providing a service to a willing population. It resulted in an economic environment that would otherwise not have existed.

That being said, it’s certainly within the scope of Elgin’s politicians to instate the ban. It is equally within the power of voters to cast their ballot for those who want to remove the ban. This is all a good thing. This is an example of a Representative Republic in action.

If the people truly care about economic and personal freedom they will vote for politicians who propose, or fail to propose, certain kinds of laws. If people care less they will vote for different politicians. We get what we want in this country, not what we deserve.

The question you must ask yourself is if you believe the tiny amount of freedom given up is worth the safety guaranteed by that action.

Tom Liberman

Sports Gambling is Now Legal in Every State

Sports GamblingThe Supreme Court, in a 6 – 3 decision, struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 and made legal all gambling on sporting events in the United States. This is good news for the states who want to reap the profits therein. It is more of a mixed bag for those who wish to gamble because it is certain with this broadening of gambling there will be lives destroyed. I’d like to discuss that dual nature associated with gambling and what role the government has to play in it.

First, let’s examine how the bill got passed so we can dispense with blaming a particular political party. It’s an interesting case from a legal standpoint and the federal government used, as it often does, the Commerce Clause to provide legal justification for refusing to allow states to establish their own gambling guidelines.

The original bill passed through the Senate and the House of Representatives with little opposition from either party and the major professional sports leagues largely supported it. The Supreme Court has now ruled this was a violation of the Tenth Amendment power given to each state.

The Constitution is silent on gambling despite it being widespread at the time the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution. They knew about gambling and the harmful effects therein, just as they knew about alcoholism and its damaging potential. I cannot in good conscience simply claim gambling is a victimless crime. People destroy their own lives and those of their families by leaving their estate bankrupt. People blow their children’s college funds which can and does have a major impact on their future earning, their entire lives.

Problem Betting is a terrible impulse control disorder, I’ve seen it in action on the few occasions I’ve visited casinos. The casinos here in the St. Louis area are largely not filled with happy people spending a night out with friends but with elderly and disabled people spending their disability and social security money. It is horrific to see and that’s why I largely don’t patronize casinos.

This is why politicians of both main political parties felt justified in passing the legislation that prohibited states from sports gambling. Well, they prohibited most states and most sports. Horse Racing, Dog Racing, and Jai-alai were exempted as was the state of Nevada.

Did this actually prevent people from gambling on sports? Of course not. People continue to gamble although not legally. They place wagers with bookies who are not bound by laws and regulations. Lives are destroyed despite the law. Will more lives be destroyed when gambling is made legal? It’s certainly possible.

The underlying question you must answer if you want to know if government has the right to prevent gambling is if you think people need to be protected from themselves. For a Libertarian like myself, the answer is an obvious no but the problem is more complex. People make horrible decisions and do tremendous damage to their own lives and those who care about them. Is there an obligation to help them, even if means others are prevented from doing something they enjoy?

Is my freedom to gamble worth the destruction of so many other lives? Is my freedom to drive a car at whatever speed I want if I’m very careful worth the lives that will be lost if others, less careful, do the same?

These are not easy questions to answer. I think gambling is a personal decision the government should not be involved in restricting. What do you think?

Does the government have the right to ban gambling to protect people?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Allison Mack and the Multi-Level Marketing Sex Traffickers

Allison MackA relatively famous actor named Allison Mack has been charged with sex trafficking for recruiting women to join a multi-level marketing company called NXIVM and an associated group called DOS. What is interesting about all of this is the supposed crimes were committed largely against eager and willing victims.

When it comes to the idea of human trafficking, the United States is currently in the midst of a Moral Panic. Supposedly 15,000 people are so trafficked every year but there is almost no actual evidence to support this number. That hasn’t stopped the government and a large number of well-meaning but largely self-deluded citizens from passing useless laws and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to combat the largely non-existent problem.

That’s where Mack and a fellow named Keith Raniere get involved. Raniere is a despicable fellow. He runs a multi-level marketing company called NXIVM which is slightly different than others of its kind. Instead of simply bilking people of their money with barely legal promises, he also uses the company to convince women to serve as his sexual slaves. Under his charismatic control they allowed themselves to be branded with his initials in their pubic regions. Mack served as leader of a subsidiary organization that recruited women to serve sexually. DOS stands for dominus obsequious sororium which is Latin for master over the slave women.

There are allegations that Mack and Raniere used blackmail to keep women in NXIVM and this is against the law. The fact that women joined a group and served as sex slaves is not, much as many would like it to be, a crime. Legally competent adults should be able to choose what they want to do with their lives, even if sexual perversions are involved. Where there are charges of coercion and blackmail, they should be investigated.

If Mack was involved with blackmail she should be so charged. The problem here is we are using laws created to stop a non-existent problem to prosecute people for a particular activity we find distasteful. Something that should never have been illegal in the first place. This is a microcosm of the entire War on Drugs and also the needless traffic crimes which result in the theft of billions of dollars from citizens.

I think it is telling when the government went to Mexico to arrest Raniere, the woman at his compound hopped into their cars and chased the police all the way to the airport trying to rescue him. They are clearly not victims here. Certainly, they are dupes and fools but they are participating in something and they eagerly want to continue to do so. The government should not be trying to prevent us from doing that which we desire, even if it isn’t in our best self-interest. That is our job.

Raniere is scum. Mack is as well. But unless they drug an unwilling victim and keep them imprisoned either physically or through blackmail, they haven’t committed a crime. I know the headlines are shrieking human trafficking but that’s not what happened.

As much as my stomach is turned by the behavior of Raniere and Mack, their freedom is my freedom. If they can be arrested for convincing someone to be a sex slave can I be arrested for convincing someone to purchase my books because the government might not like their content? It’s not as big a stretch as you might imagine.

We must guard not only our freedom, but those who we dislike as well, particularly those whose behavior is most disturbing.

Tom Liberman