No One Elected Jack Dorsey and that is the Point

No One Elected Jack Dorsey

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

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

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

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

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

Madness! Insanity!

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

Tom Liberman

Jared Kushner and Black People wanting Success

Jared Kushner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Liberman

Debates about Government Oil Policy

Government Oil Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Liberman

Troy Aikman and the Flyover


The fact Troy Aikman and Joe Buck have their patriotism put in doubt when they question the need for a flyover during an NFL game with low attendance starkly tells us about something called Ego Defense. It’s not about disagreeing; it’s about feeling devalued. It’s not about Aikman, Buck, and the flyover, it’s about your own fragile ego.

I wrote about taxpayer money going to sports teams for various military tributes and a flyover is essentially the same thing, the money being paid for advertisements comes out of taxpayer money. With the country in suffocating debt, exacerbated by the failed Covid-19 response to the tune of $3.1 trillion this year alone, it’s more than a legitimate criticism from Aikman and Buck, it’s a simple fact. Why is the military spending tens of thousands of dollars to perform a flyover for a largely empty stadium?

Why is your self-worth wrapped up in criticizing Aikman and Buck? How is it that you somehow fool yourself into thinking you’re patriotic when you accuse others of not being so? It’s simply an Ego Defense.

In the words of a Psychology Today Article: … criticism is an easy form of ego defense. We don’t criticize because we disagree with a behavior or an attitude. We criticize because we somehow feel devalued by the behavior or attitude. Critical people tend to be easily insulted and especially in need of ego defense.

The article goes on to explain those who feel the need to criticize do so out of feelings of unworthiness. My own anecdotal experience confirms this quite thoroughly. Those who feel the need to criticize others are doing so out of their own feelings of self-loathing. They must convince themselves they are better than others and that’s exactly what is happening with Aikman, Buck, and the flyover.

Taking a knee during the National Anthem, wearing a BLM shirt, an Antifa shirt, waving a Confederate Flag, waving a Rainbow Flag, none of these things hurts you in any way, it’s all about you and your own problems. Your ego is fragile and needs defense. The more fragile your ego, the more you need to criticize everyone who does thing differently than you, the stronger your ego, the less you need to do so.

Aikman did nothing wrong, it’s pretty clear his opinion has merit, something we can discuss at length but is not the point I’m making today. If you think Aikman is less of a patriot because he chose to criticize the flyover, then it’s you with the problem, not him. Get over it.

Tom Liberman

Watching People Argue in a Chess Chat

Chess Chat

Chess Chat is as filled with acrimonious debate as any political forum and, while watching the first round of the Norway Chess Tournament an instructive moment occurred which I will wax on about today. Don’t be too distressed, the topic isn’t primarily chess, or chess chat, it’s how to have a productive debate.

In this case the chess chat included a hearty exchange, including nasty insults as per usual, between two interlocuters debating as to which chess format, blitz or classical was more interesting, or more to the point whether or not classical chess is boring. Of some note but not important to the point is that one of the debaters is essentially the chief sponsor of chess in the United States. He took the side that classical chess was more interesting while an unknown but equally belligerent opponent took the opposite view.

Don’t worry, the chess talk is finished. What is important to understand is the nature of the question being debated and how to arrive at an objective answer. One side of the debate posited that a particular thing was more boring than another thing of largely the same nature.

What is the first thing to understand in order to arrive at a conclusion to this debate? What is boring, how do we define boring in this context, it must be determined. We cannot have any meaningful answer until we do so. Now, there are a number of ways to do this, but what is vitally important to understand is that neither of the two challengers made any attempt to do so.

They simply wrote facts back and forth at one another. This many people watched that tournament, so many people watched the other tournament. The quality of play in this style is better than the other style. It was endless, pointless, and much to the dismay of most of the people in chat, hideously boring. No one got anywhere except to clog up the chess chat with their ranting and most certainly, no one’s opinions were changed. Meanwhile, there was some quite interesting chess being played that the two debaters completely ignored.

The lesson is simple enough, you can’t arrive at an objective answer without defining what it is you are debating. A lesson neither of the two debaters understood or, frankly, are ever likely to understand.

Thus ends the lesson, young Ionians. Go outside to practice your Phalanx maneuvers and we shall return to the problem on the morrow.

Tom Liberman

Why Does Coreg Cost so much?


A company called Teva Pharmaceuticals just got hit with a $235 million penalty for selling a generic version of Coreg which can help with congestive heart failure. Teva sells it for 4 cents a pill while the brand name manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline sells it for $1.50 a pill. And you wonder why medical costs are high in the United States?

If you suffer from congestive heart failure then you are forced to purchase your pills at an enormous premium, just to try and stay alive. The entire legal case is fairly instructive in understanding why drug prices are so high in the United States as compared to most of the rest of the world.

Glaxo has the rights to Coreg but the original patent expired. During its use, Glaxo determined that Coreg is also effective against hypertension. They got a new patent on Coreg for that disease which is still in effect. Teva markets their drug with a label that excludes hypertension to avoid patent infringement. Doctors, however, are well aware the generic Teva version of Coreg works well against hypertension as well as congestive heart failure, and, wanting to save their patients a lot of money, prescribe it.

It’s all fascinating from a legal perspective but it is the actual impact that interests me the most. It’s clear if Teva can make a generic version of Coreg for four cents a pill, that Glaxo could certainly drop the price on their version dramatically. Particularly to be noted; Coreg is already out of its original patent and any profit taking should have already occurred, that’s the whole point of a patent.

Sure, Glaxo figured out Coreg had another purpose but that didn’t cost them anything more in research and development. It’s exactly the same drug they originally patented. They’ve had the legally required amount of time to make a profit off exclusive sales. Yet, they are still gouging patients at a rate of $1.46 per pill because they found a new use for it and can suppress competition.

This is part and parcel why healthcare costs in the United States are an enormous problem. I’m not against patents, I think Glaxo has every right to exclusively offer their product in order to recoup development costs. That time frame has expired.

The major drug companies use the FDA and the United States court system as weapons against anyone trying to produce cheaper version of medication. You pay. This case will cost you and those you love.

This is part of the reason insurance costs are so high, this is why tens of millions of U.S. citizens can’t afford insurance, go without drugs, suffer terribly, and often die. The entire reason we have the Affordable Care Act, which is so polarizing, is because of this weaponization of the FDA and the court systems against capitalism in the form of generic drugs.

If companies were allowed to reasonably create generic drugs then we most likely wouldn’t need the ACA, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Tom Liberman

Irish Court rules Subway Sandwiches not made with Bread

Subway Sandwiches

The Supreme Court of Ireland just ruled Subway Sandwiches are not made with bread. You read correctly. What’s important to understand is not the ruling itself but the reason behind the ruling, why is it judges must spend time determining the composition of Subway sandwiches.

The reason the justices were examining the situation is because Ireland has a tax exemption for staple foods like bread but differentiates bread from cake by how much sugar is used in the baking process. A case was brought by Subway wanting a refund for the ingredients they use to make bread. The court ruled the amount of sugar used in making bread for Subway sandwiches is greater than the limit allowed. I’m going to stop examining the actual case here and get to my main point, which has nothing to do with how the bread on Subway sandwiches is prepared.

The problem here is that the courts are looking at the baking process of bread, not what that procedure might or might not be. It’s basically the same reason the United States Supreme Court ruled a tomato is a vegetable. It all has to do with taxes, tariffs, and government intervention.

Now, you are probably thinking, hey, it’s a good thing the government gives tax exempt status to staple foods so that people don’t have to pay extra for a simple meal. I agree. The problem isn’t giving tax exempt status to bread, the problem is taxing food at all. What is the justification for taxes on food?

I’ve written before I’m not completely against taxes. We pay taxes for transport infrastructure because the government uses tax money to build and maintain roads. We find those roads particularly useful and so, rather than have each neighborhood build and maintain their own section of road, we allow the government to tax us for a unified system.

The justification for taxing food is the same as the justification for any product. People need to drive to the store to purchase things. However, the drive to the store to purchase bread is exactly the same as the drive to purchase a chocolate cake. Taxing cake but not bread is an attempt to make people eat in a healthier manner and forces the courts to look into the baking process at Subway, which is time not well spent.

If we decide it is important for people to purchase food and give tax exempt status to those doing so, we should do it across the board. The best solution is to simply stop taxing all food items rather than force the courts to decide what constitutes bread. Simple and efficient, the way government should operate but seldom does.

Tom Liberman