Monthly Archives: February 2026

Post Office Immunity Ludicrous

Posted on by
Post Office Immunity

The Supreme Court just ruled that Post Office Immunity extends to mail intentionally withheld by postal employees against orders from the USPS Inspector General. There is a racial element to the case but I don’t think that an important issue in the dispute.

My rant today isn’t just against Post Office immunity to lawsuits but the general tendency in the courts to uphold laws granting such immunity. I’ve discussed this issue from a wider point of view so I’ll stick with the specifics this time.

Post Office Immunity Examined

The Post Office is granted immunity from lawsuits involving missing, lost, and undeliverable mail. This is not unreasonable although I’m always skeptical of immunity protections. The basic principle is that if the immunity did not exist, the Post Office would be inundated with lawsuits over lost mail and have to prove such a general mistake without malicious intent.

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, argues that this protection extends to the intentional nondelivery of mail and four of his colleagues agree.

The Case in Question

Lebene Konan owns several rental properties. One day she found her mailbox key changed so that she could no longer access the mail and deliver it to her tenants. The stated reason being that she was required to prove that she actually owned the property. She then provided the appropriate information but the situation was not resolved.

The USPS Inspector General intervened and ordered mail to be delivered. It was still withheld. Important mail including medication, bills, and other vital information was not delivered. Tenants, weary of the situation, moved out. Konan filed dozens of complaints and eventually resorted to a lawsuit which has been making its way through the courts for two years now.

Konan claims there is a racial element to the situation, she is black. That is unimportant to me but it does factor into the ramifications of the ruling.

Post Office Immunity Apparently Absolute

This case clearly means that Post Office Immunity to lawsuits is now absolute. Now, at any Post Office, if the manager doesn’t like you for whatever reason, that person can withhold your mail. They risk being fired, I suppose, but if they have the general support of their superiors, there can be no ramifications.

Conclusion

The Post Office is now legally able to stop delivering you mail because of your religion or lack thereof; your skin color, the fact that your children have a beef at school, because someone finds your spouse attractive and thinks you are undeserving of their love. Any reason whatsoever.

If anyone, outside of five Supreme Court Justices finds this reasonable, well, I don’t even know what to say. The law is now a tool of suppression, plain and simple.

Tom Liberman

Mitigate Mistakes don’t Compound Them

Posted on by
Mitigate Mistakes

I made an enormous tactical mistake during my Friday night Board Game session this past weekend and I remembered an important chess concept; mitigate mistakes, don’t compound them.

Chess is really the first place I learned about the notion and Magnus Carlson demonstrated the idea during his recent run to become Chess Freestyle World Champion. I think the idea we must mitigate mistakes rather than compounding them a useful life lesson and therefore, here we go,

What is it to Mitigate Mistakes?

My tactical blunder during the latest session of Ticket to Ride: Legends of the West involved me playing to the winning strategy of a previous turn rather than the winning strategy of the current turn. Basically, I put my gold into the wrong basket. By the time I realized my enormous blunder, it was far too late to fix it.

There was no possible way to attempt the previous round strategy and accomplish any of the goals of the current round. That’s when I put on my mitigate mistakes hat. Rather than pursuing my original strategy, I gave it up. I went with the new strategy and accomplished multiple goals gaining a fairly good number of points. Not as many as if I played that way from the start, but at least some.

Don’t Compound the Mistake

By giving up my original strategy I essentially forfeited all, or at least most, of the points associated with the original goal. It’s certainly true that giving up those points hurt me but they were already lost for the most part, the old goal was less useful in the new round.

If I continued on with my misguided strategy I would have earned none of the points associated with the better tactic and fallen even further behind than I did.

Conclusion

The lesson is that once the mistake happens, there is no fixing it. What’s done is done. Trying to fix it generally just compounds the problem and makes it worse. That’s what we should all learn to do.

It’s not easy to admit a mistake and we all want to deny it because of our ego. Sometimes it’s important to put the ego away, mitigate mistakes with a humble sigh, and get on with life.

Tom Liberman

Gambling Machines in Missouri

Posted on by
Gambling Machines

A recent court case in Missouri brought gambling machines under scrutiny and I thought it was a good chance to look at this issue from a Libertarian perspective.

The gambling machines, often called video lottery terminals, operate in gas stations, bars, and stores throughout the state. I’ve written on several occasions about the Libertarian perspective on legalized gambling and the harm it causes so I don’t want to rehash those arguments. What I’d like to examine today is the government’s interest in supposedly banning these devices.

The Gambling Machines

These gambling machines are essentially slot machines. Put in some money, spin the wheel, hope for a good outcome. They try to skirt the law against such devices located outside casinos by adding a small element of skill. This, they argue, makes them a skill game rather than a gambling game of pure chance. The courts have ruled and they disagree with this argument.

There are a pair of these gambling machines in the local market where I purchase delicious, house-made sandwiches every Saturday on my way back from the gym. They don’t always have somebody standing in front of them, feeding them money, but I’d say they are in use the majority of the time I’m there.

People like these gambling machines and the places that have them like them because they get a cut of the revenue generated.

What the State says about Gambling Machines

I’m going to give you a couple of quotes from those who argue these devices must be removed following the court decision.

County Executive Sam Page

When these unregulated machines bypass taxing and licensing, they divert revenue from infrastructure from public education and important government services like public safety and public health.

Governor Mike Kehoe

Certainly, as we’re trying to figure out problems with our budget where we’re … trying to not cut programs that are essential, we have to make some very hard decisions. We want to look at things that are out there right now that aren’t operating legally, that could provide a revenue stream through some sort of regulation.

Why the State is Involved

If you read those quotes I doubt I have to tell you why the state is involved in removing these gambling machines. It’s not for the well-being of those who are adversely affected by such devices. It’s not about helping those with gambling addictions. It’s not about human decency.

It’s about revenue, plain and simple. You know it, I know it, the politicians know it. Money is the deciding factor in almost everything these days. What will help us make more money? What will help rich people get richer? How can we squeeze more money from tax-payers?

Conclusion

It’s interesting how in Missouri the argument has shifted away from the moral objections associated with gambling. Anyway, I find it interesting. Do you?

Tom Liberman

Lindsey Vonn Stupidity or Courage?

Posted on by
Stupidity or Courage

I’m not a big fan of the Olympics in general as I’ve written before but the Lindsey Vonn crash makes me ponder the question of stupidity or courage. I’ve considered this sort of thing before in my own life in various situations, hiking, rock-climbing, etc.

In this case Vonn decided to attempt the Olympic Downhill race with serious injuries. The attempt resulted in a horrific crash leaving her crying in pain. My question is what do you think of her decision? Was it stupidity or courage?

Stupidity versus Courage in Life

I think most of us have experience with deciding the question of stupidity or courage in a particular situation. In my own life I can recall several incidents, but I won’t go into detail. Basically, I tend to be a cautious person and I think, for the most part, I choose to be smart and not courageous. There have been exceptions and my old-man body still has trouble in the morning, afternoon, and evening because of those courageous/stupid decisions.

Was the choice of stupidity worth it? I’m just not sure. I definitely am glad that I did many of the things that frightened me, that caused me to tremble in fear. I am afraid of heights; but as a boy I took a climbing class and while I still get nervous in elevated situations, I’m not debilitated thanks to that courageous decision.

On the other hand, I’ve been on hikes where there was a dangerous situation and I went around. I vividly recall a teenage girl climbing up a cliff face waterfall in her flip flops with a twenty-foot drop to rocks below. She made it but I’m not sure it was a good decision.

The Lindsey Vonn Situation

Lindsey Vonn made a stupidity or courage decision and paid a price. Will she think it was worth it? That’s for her to decide. What do you think?

Was Lindsey Vonn Courageous or Stupid

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman