Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Trump and the Constitutional Crisis of Marijuana

Posted on by

marijuanaTrump dropped the big one. No, not Health Care. Medical Marijuana. I’ve been speaking with friends about this issue since before the election and I’m of the opinion it has the greatest potential to destroy the United States. My friends mostly laugh at me but read on and see if I’m being an alarmist or not.

Legal marijuana. President Trump and his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, have been talking about enforcing the federal marijuana laws against states that have legalized or decriminalized it.

Why is this such a potentially destructive issue? Because it brings State’s Right to the front in a way we haven’t seen in generations. A number of states have made their will apparent. The people of those states want legal marijuana. The federal government disagrees. The question then becomes how the federal government enforces the restriction. That’s what I believe to be extremely dangerous.

There are some nonviolent methods available to the federal government. Banking restrictions on the funds generated by legal marijuana for example. That being said, the main option the federal government has is interdiction. This means sending federal Drug Enforcement Agency officers into various states to arrest owners and employees of such stores. This means there is the potential, I would say likelihood, of law enforcement officers for the various states defending these locations. That could easily lead to armed encounters.

We might see federal law enforcement officers killing or being killed by state law enforcement officers. What you must remember is that federal law enforcement officers also have loyalty to the various states to whom they associate themselves. A DEA officers who hails from California, for example, might well be in an armed confrontation with his brother who is a police officer from the state.

When was the last time brother fought brother in the United States? I know I’m sounding a shrill alarm and nothing has happened to date. I’ve been listening to the words of President Trump since he was campaigning and I’ve also read much of what Attorney General Sessions has said in the past. They are both strong believers that drugs are tearing the fabric of our nation apart.

I disagree, it is the illegal status of drugs that is causing all the problems. If we followed the various state’s leads by decriminalizing drug use, this entire problem would largely resolve itself. That clearly does not seem to be the aim of this administration. They want heavy-handed law enforcement. I, for one, don’t doubt the resolve of the people of California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and other states who have made marijuana legal. I don’t think they’re going to simply back down.

If the states refuse to back down, then the federal government has two options. They can reverse course and stop enforcing marijuana crimes or they can escalate the situation by sending in more troops.

If hostilities between federal and state law enforcement agencies becomes a reality, that is a serious issue. It could potentially destroy the United States as we know it. The western states could simply leave the Union. Another Civil War could begin if the remaining states decided to prevent such an exodus.

Again, I know I’m setting off extreme alarm bells here. I’m probably being overly dramatic but this is the first time in my life I’ve seen the potential for armed conflict between the federal government and the various states. Once that starts, it’s impossible to predict how or where it will end.

All over a simple weed that grows just about everywhere in the country. All over one group of people who think they should be able to tell legally competent adults not to smoke it.

Tom Liberman

Too Much Alcohol in Bombay Sapphire

Posted on by

bombay sapphireThe Canadian Food Inspection Agency recently issued a recall order of a batch of the delightful, I speak from personal experience, Bombay Sapphire Gin. It turns out one batch was bottled before it was diluted leaving it at double the alcohol content. Jokes aside, having twice as much alcohol in a bottle is a dangerous situation. People will drink far more alcohol than intend. The recall is appropriate.

Now, I’m a Libertarian so you’re probably asking yourself why I would be talking about this situation. It seems to be an advertisement for government oversight. What the headlines and even the articles themselves fail to mention is who noticed the problem and reported it. It wasn’t until I actually followed the links back to the recall statement itself that I found out what I suspected the moment I read the headline. Bacardi themselves discovered the error and reported it.

I strongly suspect most people will assume exactly the opposite. People will believe the CFIA routinely tests all batches of food and alcohol and they noticed the issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. The agency doesn’t have anywhere near the money or facilities to perform that kind of testing. They rely on reports of illness and the vendors themselves.

This illusion the CFIA, or a similar agency, is on the watch looking for any contamination or other problem with your food gives the impression of safety. It doesn’t actually make you any safer. The people of Canada are no safer today than if Bacardi themselves had issued the alert. The same goes for almost every case of food poisoning. The agency issuing the alert is merely following up reports that would have made their way to the media in any case.

It’s in Bacardi’s self-interest to report the problem. If someone drank too much of the doubled content and died, the lawsuit to follow would dwarf the cost of the recall. Not to mention the fact the executives at Bacardi are quite likely decent human beings. They don’t want to hurt anyone. They want to provide a product that people enjoy, and do they ever!

I won’t deny that in some situations a cover-up occurs when some terrible oversight happens. But the agency doesn’t even help in that situation. If Bacardi hadn’t reported the problem to begin with, there is no way the CFIA would have noticed unless people started to talk about the issue. And if that had happened, it would have spread around the internet like wildfire.

Public perception is my problem with this entire incident. The article gives a completely false impression about what happened. It would have been so easy to explain the reality of the event within the article. I will give credit to the CFIA who mention this reality in their alert.
And, for full disclosure, I prefer my Bombay Sapphire Martini made in the following way.

Gin should be stored at room temperature. Pour dry vermouth in shaker with ice. Shake lightly. Pour out vermouth leaving residue behind. Pour in Bombay Sapphire. Shake vigorously until intensely cold. This waters down the gin taking off the edge while infusing the remaining vermouth nicely. Pour in martini glass, add green olive. Serve. Enjoy.

Tom Liberman

State Regulated Barber Poles in New Hampshire

Posted on by

barber polesYep. You read correctly. The New Hampshire Board of Barbering, Cosmetology and Esthetics is on the streets keeping America safe from rogue barber poles. You are only allowed to display the red, white, and blue striped pole if you have a license to be a barber in the state of New Hampshire. Mere cosmetologists, who have their own regulatory rules, do not meet the standard.

This is a microcosm of the government in the United States. We have regulatory boards for virtually every business that exists. In order to practice you must have a state license. The rational given for all of this oversight is that it is needed for your safety. The state must protect you from people who call themselves barbers, but are actually only cosmetologists. It’s the same for massage therapists and your trainer at the gym.

What’s the real reason for all these agencies? For the regulation of barber poles? Money, power, and competition suppression.

The state generates enormous sums of money by charging yearly licensing fees to all these businesses. They use your tax dollars to pay the employees of these agencies. They charge more money forcing people to pass ridiculous tests to prove they can actually perform their jobs.

And then there is the power aspect. There are those charged with enforcing these ludicrous regulations and it tickles their fancy to roam about and issue citations to anyone who dares flaunt the law. They get little badges and ticket books. Their salary is paid for by the very people they harass. I’m sure there are plenty of very reasonable inspectors who don’t enforce the letter of their regulations on anyone who annoys them, but I’m equally certain that many who enjoy harassing citizens. Who among us hasn’t encountered an unreasonable and petty inspector who enjoyed making us squirm?

Finally, there is simply the fact that large and enterprise businesses are much more capable of paying all these fees and abiding by all these regulations. These regulations crush small businesses. They stifle competition for larger companies who have armies of lawyers and deep pocketed lobbyists. These enterprise businesses often end up actually writing the regulations with wording designed specifically to crush competition. They then pay the bills for legislators who in return for this favor, create the laws.

These supposed tests that ensure a practitioner is qualified? I know a little about them as well. I was in the IT industry and I had to pass all sorts of certification tests in order to be qualified to do my job. The way you pass the test is to purchase practice tests. These tests are made by companies who send in fake test takers, who relay the questions to the company, who in turn make a practice test that is pretty much exactly the same as the real test, and then sell it to potential test takers.

Let’s imagine for one crazy moment that we don’t have a Board of Barbering, Cosmetology and Esthetics. Let’s imagine someone becomes a cosmetologist or barber without going through the proper training and certification. Perhaps a barber stabs you in the eye with scissors or scalds your face with a towel that is too hot. Perhaps a cosmetologist uses hair coloring that leaves you bald. These outcomes are terrible to be certain, but do these boards and regulatory committees actually prevent them from happening?

That is the gist of the government’s argument. That by licensing massage therapists and taxi-cab drivers, it is protecting you from incompetence. The problem is that injuries happen despite these supposed safeguards. Just because someone is licensed doesn’t mean they actually know what they are doing. Just because someone is licensed doesn’t mean they can’t flee from a lawsuit.

Another important factor is the Information Age in which we find ourselves. If you are an unskilled barber or cosmetologist it will quickly get out. A few bad reviews and your business can be all but ruined. Let the buyer beware has never been truer than it is today. We have so much information at our fingertips, there really isn’t an excuse for ill-informed purchases.

The bottom line is: Never have we needed oversight less and never have we had it more.

Tom Liberman

Unicorn Against Unicorn and Colorful Lawsuits

Posted on by

unicorn-frappuccinoWhy do people file lawsuits? To win you say? I don’t think that’s always the case, and a recent kerfuffle between a Starbucks, who has a drink called the Unicorn Frappuccino, and a small Brooklyn café selling a drink called the Unicorn Frappe illustrates the point. The End Brooklyn filed a trademark on their drink and has now instigated an infringement case against Starbucks.

The thing that struck me about this lawsuit is what I perceive to be the ends desired. I won’t bore you with a lot of trademark law but basically, The End Brooklyn cannot trademark a drink. They can trademark the name, logo, and slogan associated with said drink. Sadly, the Unicorn part of the name is a pretty generic word. If they had called it the Brooklycorn or something like that, and Starbucks gave theirs the same name, there would be a legal case.

I’m pretty certain The Brooklyn End has no intentions of winning the infringement case. They are well aware Starbucks will be able to continue selling their Unicorn Frappuccino. By now you’re probably beginning to understand where I’m heading with all this. The Brooklyn End gets an enormous amount of publicity for the cost of filing the lawsuit.

The story is making headlines, and arousing passionate comments, in any number of news sites. The cost of this sort of promotion would likely be in the millions of dollars. I, and I’m certain most of the people reading this, had never heard of The Brooklyn End before today. I would most likely have spent the rest of my life in ignorance of this café. Now, I live in St. Louis so there is little chance I’ll visit the establishment in question and spend my hard-earned dollars there. Frankly, I’m a tea drinker anyway. That being said, I’m certain people who do live in that region of the country are now aware of the business.

There is every chance sales of the Unicorn Frappe will rise dramatically because of this lawsuit. It seems obvious to me that was the plan all along. I’m not criticizing The Brooklyn End nor am I being critical of our legal system. What the café is doing is both legal and crafty. Filing the infringement case costs money, there is some chance it will be found frivolous and they might end up paying any fees Starbucks accumulates. I’m certain Starbucks has many competent attorneys at the ready and is not particularly troubled by the case.

It’s a calculated business decision. Is the potential cost of the infringement case more than will be made in increased sales of the drink? If so, it was a mistake. If, on the other hand, sales of the drink are far greater than the cost of the suit then it was a good decision.

This is why we have laws against frivolous suits. The attorney who filed the lawsuit for The Brooklyn End might face serious sanctions if it is determined that it was filed in a frivolous manner.

I eagerly await an outcome to this colorful case.

Tom Liberman

Raven Osborne and the Future of Free Education

Posted on by

raven-osborneI have a strong interest in all things educationally related as I once worked as a Technology Trainer. One of the big topics we see in this field is the so-called Right to an education. A young woman named Raven Osborne, and her accomplishments, give what I believe is a peek into what education will eventually be for everyone.

Osborne was able to take a number of college credit courses through her high school. She also completed courses online. She will now get a college degree in Sociology at the same time she graduates high school. All at no cost.

One of the most interesting things about this is that it harkens to the past. In the old days, we did not have nearly the formalized schooling environment we see today. It was quite possible to obtain a license to practice law without attending law school. You simply educated yourself through available resources and then proved an adequate knowledge of the material. Can you say Abraham Lincoln?

While Lincoln had to read books, we now have the Internet and people can take many classes online. It’s certainly possible to pay for these classes and accumulate college credits but it is becoming increasingly easy to simply watch videos for free. I’ve always had an interest in law and I’ve been watching YouTube videos about Contract Law. I think it’s quite likely if I studied diligently enough, I could learn as much as was necessary to pass the Bar Exam. I could do all this without a single payment of any kind other than internet access.

As more and more educational opportunities became available through the Internet, it seems increasingly likely people will take advantage of them, as did Osborne. We’ll see a whole new generation of doctors, lawyers, massage therapists, and professionals in every field imaginable simply learning their skills through free sources and setting out in the world to make a living.

There is a huge debate among various factions about how education is a right. In a number of countries, a college education is paid for by the state. There are those who want such a system here in the United States. There are many who think this is prohibitively expensive.

Well, I’ve got good news. It’s all going to happen without any government intervention. It’s just going to require the sort of personal initiative that we see from Osborne and we saw from Lincoln. There is coming a time to this world where an education, in any field you might want to pursue, is completely available for all; at the cost of an internet connection. How incredible is that?

Technology and innovation is going to completely solve the problem. It is based on the personal initiative of educators posting their knowledge and colleges making classes available online to view. I challenge you to go, right now, to the internet and search for an educational topic that interests you. Find some videos and learn. Become a Photoshop master. Learn the law. Start on your way toward a career in veterinarian care. It’s mostly out there already and the catalog of available information is growing quickly.

I foresee a time when there are no schools at all. Every person will have the opportunity to get any education they desire for free. Then there are no excuses. If you want to be a lawyer but don’t take advantage of what is available, the onus is upon you.

The future is impossible to predict but it seems quite clear to me that education will be free. That more and more people will have the opportunity to enrich their lives without being limited by financial wherewithal. This means those most motivated and talented will succeed regardless of the circumstances of their birth. One of the great tragedies in this world is when a person with ability and desire is unable to fulfill their potential because of economic or social circumstances.

When the most motivated and the brightest are allowed to succeed, that is good for all of us.

Tom Liberman

Eager Students Need Motivated Teachers

Posted on by

eager-studentsA friend of mine who taught philosophy years ago, recently recounted a conversation he had with a student and it brought to my mind the nature of learning. There are two facets to the teacher student relationship that must be in good working order for learning to occur in a meaningful way. The teacher must want to impart information and the eager students must want to learn. I think this is fairly self-evident but I asked myself, after reading the dialog, how can we improve the current status?

How many of you had instructors who weren’t much interested in teaching? I know I did. The worst teacher I ever encountered likely changed the course of my life. She was a history teacher in high school and her lessons consisted of putting transparencies on the overhead projector and changing them every ten minutes or so while we wrote down their content. She had the entire semester laid out on those transparencies and, from beginning to end, we barely had a discussion in class.

Tests consisted of her writing the questions on the chalkboard and sitting at her desk while we took the test. From this teacher, I learned to hate history.

In college, I was friends with a history major and he convinced me to take a high-level class in European history that had no prerequisites. The professor was engaging, interesting, and taught with enthusiasm. I learned, contrary to what I believed, I love history. I’ve been a history buff ever since. If I had that teacher in high school, I am all but certain I would have followed a very different course in my professional life.

Therefore, we see the importance of a teacher who wishes to teach. If the teacher is willing to engage and challenge the student; the chances of learning increase dramatically.

Now I must also face a harsh reality. I was an indifferent student. I didn’t pay much attention in class and I shirked doing homework or any sort of schoolwork at all. I wanted to play sports and, later, Dungeons and Dragons. That was about it. I had an incredibly engaging chemistry teacher in high school. Perhaps one of the best teachers I’ve had in my life. I learned more about chemistry in that class than any other but I also, most likely, learned a lot less than other students who were eager for the lessons.

I think it was most frequently said about my academic career that I was intelligent but didn’t put forth the effort required. That is more than fair, generous even. I was lazy or perhaps just completely uninterested.

In my later life, I’ve developed a strong desire to learn although, as in my youth, only in topics that interest me. I suspect if I were to go back to what we call traditional school, teachers might well give the same evaluation report.

To me it’s fairly clear that a desire to learn by the student and an eagerness to impart information as a teacher are an indispensable couple in the quest for education.

What is different in this information age is students have a much broader pool of instructors. With YouTube and colleges offering Video on Demand courses, there is an ever-increasing amount of fantastic knowledge out there. I’m certain this is going to grow larger and larger. There will be a time in the not too far distant future when anyone can learn anything while sitting at her or his computer.

Perhaps if I was born fifteen years ago instead of fifty-two, I would have learned my love of history when a lad. Perhaps my life would be very different today, at least professionally. That’s an astonishing thought. Today I spend hours learning about history through various sources, including college courses available to watch on YouTube.

It’s quite possible that any number of young, eager students, might someday watch videos created by my friend and go on to distinguished careers in philosophy. That some young girl or boy might watch one of his lessons on YouTube and eventually come up with a revolutionary idea in the field. In the past, my friend was limited to students in the classroom. That limitation no longer exists.

To sum it all up I say to my friend, get cracking.

Tom Liberman

Josh McDermitt and Giving Power to Trolls

Posted on by

Josh-McDermittAn actor by the name of Josh McDermitt recently removed his Social Media accounts because of the inordinate amount of hate coming his way. McDermitt plays a character named Eugene on the television show The Walking Dead. Eugene is a complex character who has done more than a few questionable things.

The Social Media accounts of celebrities tend to attract what are called trolls. McDermitt’s various accounts were no exception and all the vile posts apparently convinced him to remove the profiles. In a final video, he spoke about death threats and various other attacks against him. I’m guessing he thinks most of these attacks were made by delusional people confusing his public persona with the actions of the character he plays.

I sympathize with McDermitt. The internet is filled with a lot of vitriol. The amount of pure hate and rage that actors and other celebrities see on their accounts is enormous. That being said, it’s largely just a bunch of nonsense. The vast majority of the people making death threats and spewing other vile comments are merely trolls looking to stir up trouble. They don’t hate McDermitt or his character on The Walking Dead.

The anonymity of the internet engenders this sort of behavior. Create twenty or more accounts and start trolling. It’s entirely possible that a great number of the messages that drove McDermitt to quit his various accounts came from a single, super-active troll. I’ve seen it before. I’ve seen one person with multiple accounts engage in an argument with her or his self to make it seem there are actually two, or more, people posting.

I’ve seen a small number of trolls band together to post literally thousands of vile messages on an account in the hopes of getting under the skin of their target.

I’d be more than willing to wager the vast majority of the threats and nastier comments are coming from people just trying to get a reaction. That reaction, called a lulz, is the goal of all the effort. It’s really quite silly, I don’t deny this fact. The people who engage in such activities would be far better served to do something useful with their lives. But, in the end, it is the troll’s life to waste seeking lulz.

It’s also McDermitt’s final decision to keep the accounts going or not. That being said, I’m a believer in what is already an old adage: Don’t feed the trolls. Basically, ignore them. Don’t react in any way. Don’t fight with them, don’t call them names, don’t even acknowledge the messages. Go on about your life.

I’m of the opinion McDermitt should have kept his accounts live and tried to take the verbal assault with stoicism. I know it’s easy to make that statement from my position, where virtually no one knows me and I don’t have to put up with the craziness that’s out there.

We have this impression the world is filled with a bunch of irrational idiots but I don’t think that is true. I think most people are quite reasonable and know the difference between an actor and the character she or he portrays on a television show. The vast majority of the people commenting on his various Social Media outlets are not serious. They are trolls, and when McDermitt reacts, they win.

Tom Liberman

Why Executive Orders instead of Presidential Memorandum?

Posted on by

Executive-OrderI was just reading President Trump issued an Executive Order asking the Commerce Department to review our trade agreements. Really? Must we have an Executive Order instead of a simple phone call asking for a review?

Off to Wikipedia where I found there are a series of other executive actions to be taken in situations that don’t meet the requirements of an Executive Order.

In this case, a Presidential Memorandum seems in order. The idea of this type of action is simply to manage the actions, practices, and policies of various departments. The big difference between the two is an Executive Order requires constitutional justification.

In the case of this particular action, it seems clear to me that a memorandum is far more appropriate. The President is simply asking staffers in a particular department to review trade agreements. There is no actual action being taken. So why the Executive Order?

The answer is quite obvious. President Trump loves sitting at a table, surrounded by sycophants, having his picture taken, and blustering away. I know his supporters are going to lambaste me for this position but I find the entire dog and pony show to be a bit tiring.
The entire justification for this Executive Order seems to be a photo opportunity.

I’m not saying a review of our trade agreements is a bad idea. I’m not commenting on the contents of the order itself. It just the necessity of the designation that bothers my sensibilities. It’s like using a sledge hammer to pound a nail. It brings my mind to question the ability of the Trump administration to properly diagnose issues, and that is troubling. If they consistently use a sledge hammer when a claw hammer is a more appropriate tool, it seems to me they are asking for trouble.

I know this is a small thing but for some reason it really strikes me. It’s a simple lack of understanding of processes and procedures. As a model, let’s look at Executive Orders comparing actions by President Trump and President Obama.

President Obama issued 276 Executive Orders and 644 Memorandums. That means President Obama used the memorandum 70% of the time and the order 30% of the time.

President Trump has issued thirty-three Executive Orders and twelve Memorandums. That means President Trump used the memorandum 27% of the time and the order 73% of the time. That’s basically completely reversed from President Obama’s use of the two.

It is clear to me that far more memorandums should be issued than orders. Executive Orders should be reserved for situations in which they are appropriate.

I’m probably tilting against windmills here. There are certainly much larger issues to complain about with the Trump administration. That being said, knowing the right tool for the job is an important factor in properly accomplishing that which you set out to do. If you use the wrong tool, you’ll not often have successful results.

Tom Liberman

What Constitutes Disruption and the Slide Toward Totalitarianism

Posted on by

disruptionThere’s an interesting case making its way through the courts about a woman who laughed during a Congressional hearing and is now facing charges of disruption. This is not an isolated incident. Authorities seem to be finding a plethora of creative ways to arrest protestors. Many of the arrests made at the Dakota Pipeline Protest were of this ilk.

The right of people to assemble and protest is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and when law enforcement agencies attempt to curtail this right, we must be wary. A totalitarian state does not brook vocal opposition. I’m certainly not suggesting we live in such a state, but every time I hear about dissent being squashed I take note.

Often times what we see in cases like this is that charges are completely dropped before the case gets to court or the charge is dismissed by a sympathetic judge. I think what is necessary to curb this tendency to bring charges against protesters under the flimsiest of circumstances is simply fines. For every such charge in which the case is dismissed, the person so arrested should be financial remunerated by the agent who made the arrest. It’s a relatively simple solution that inhibits those making the arrests and compensates the person so incarcerated.

I’d be particularly pleased if the arresting officer paid the fine out of her or his personal salary. When we fine the agency itself, the officer doesn’t feel any real pain. An agency might think it worthwhile to arrest a bunch of protestors and pay for it out of tax dollars some years down the road. It seems to me anyone looking at even a moderate fine for arresting a protestor on flimsy charges is going to think twice before moving forward.

As I stated at the top of this article, this is not an issue to be taken lightly. Our constitutional rights are at stake. If government agents are allowed to arrest people on ridiculous charges which are dismissed at a later date without penalty, well, there is nothing to stop such law enforcement groups from doing so in ever increasing numbers.

I take the right to protest quite seriously and so did the Founding Fathers. This is a right people on all sides of the political spectrum should embrace. It is almost certain at some time in the future you will want to protest some policy or person and the party in power will not want you to do so.

I’m well aware that some protestors are violent, angry, and disruptive. Such demonstrators should be subject to legal remedies, but I think it’s important to err on the side of caution. Our liberty is at stake. I’m willing to put up with some rudeness in order to be free. If someone yells out in a hearing or puts a foot beyond the barrier; we must accept her or his right to do so.

When we stop allowing people to protest peacefully, they will find other ways to express themselves. None of us want to live in a nation where the only method available to criticize your government is violence. When we justify arrests on the flimsiest of charges, we move our nation incrementally toward that end.

Tom Liberman

Hotel California not really Hotel California

Posted on by

Hotel CaliforniaFor anyone near my age, 52, the song Hotel California brings back strong memories. The song was an enormous hit for The Eagles in 1977. So, I was filled with curiosity when I saw members of the band have filed a lawsuit against a hotel in Mexico called Hotel California.

I’m also quite interested in all things legal and I find the case itself to be utterly fascinating. The Hotel California is a small hotel in Baja California Sur and had that name dating back to 1950. The hotel changed owners and names a number of times, but wily entrepreneurs began to market it under the original name in 2001. Using marketing campaigns and events at the hotel itself, they create an association between the establishment and the song.

The hotel was not the inspiration for the song and the band members feel as though their song is being used to falsely advertise the hotel.
Judging by the comments I’m reading in various articles about the lawsuit, opinions seem sharply divided. Some think it is a terrible overreach by the band while others think the hotel is clearly in the wrong.

Let me begin by telling you that I’m not a lawyer. My opinions herein are not based on a legal understanding of the case but upon a layman’s.

The hotel clearly has the right to use the name Hotel California. It was the hotel’s name long before the song. The Eagles have no right to stop them from using it. The lawsuit apparently simply wants the owners to stop using the false association. I’m guessing their argument is that people who stay at the hotel are disappointed it is not associated with the song and, perhaps, even blame the band for the misinformation.

It’s clear the hotel is creating a false association but that is not necessarily a crime. As the law says, Caveat Emptor. Let the Buyer Beware. The basic premise is that people have to take it upon themselves to understand the hotel is not associated with the song. They must spend the time to research this information before plunking down money to stay at the hotel. People presumably pay this money because they want the experience of staying at a hotel that was the inspiration for the song. Of course, it was not, but who is to blame for this mistake? The hotel or the traveler?

Yes, they are deceiving but have they actually lied? Do they claim the hotel is associated with the song or do they simply pipe in Eagles music, presumably for which they’ve paid royalties? Do they create an environment where the unwary might be fooled, but stop short of crossing legal lines?

Where is the border crossed between fraud and legal, but reprehensible, misinformation? I’m not sure but the entire thing is absolutely captivating.

While the legal case will likely remain in limbo for who knows how long, I think the events are a good lesson for all of us. Don’t assume something is true based on an impression. Pay careful attention to the exact words being used or written. We live in the Information Age. It is not at all difficult to determine the hotel and the song are completely unrelated. A short search on the internet can easily reveal this information. If you spend your money on the hotel assuming the relationship is there, when it is not, perhaps that is your fault.

Tom Liberman

Why Is Congress Grilling Airline Executives?

Posted on by

congress airlineThe recent spate of public incidents involving various airlines has motivated members of Congress to get up from dining room table and push away lobbyist provided meals. Why is this happening? Why can Congress yell at airline executives and tell them what to do? Don’t they have anything better to occupy their time?

Congress believes they have a right to intervene in this situation because airports are largely run by the government, particular small airports without a lot of traffic. All air traffic controllers are employed by the government. The FAA maintains a large degree of control over the entire industry. They make many of the regulations by which the airlines must abide. Therefore, they think they can instruct airline executives on how to properly manage their business.

All that being said, there is one simple explanation as to why Congress is holding these hearings. Members of Congress noted that lots of people were upset by the incidents and saw a golden opportunity to prove to their constituents they are doing something, not that they actually are doing anything. Hey, let’s yell at the bad guys and everyone will love us. What will be the result of all this shouting? Nothing that wouldn’t have happened anyway.

The reason airline executives are apologizing all over themselves is not because members of Congress are lambasting them. It’s because of the immediacy of social media and the power of the consumer. When nasty incidents happen today they are promulgated throughout the country within minutes. We the people now have far more information at our fingertips than it any time in the history of the world, and this changes the way we do business.

There is no longer a need for Congress to provide certain forms of oversight to the airline industry. Capitalism can now be wielded like a club in a way never before known. The ability of consumers to purchase the products they desire has always been a powerful driving force in the economy but in the modern age, this power can be brought to bear within hours of an incident.

This is clearly a situation where Congress need not get involved. The people have spoken and airline executives can either listen or not. This is simply a case of members of Congress acting like small children who want their mother to watch them leap from the diving board. It’s an opportunity to pretend they are doing something, and that enrages me.

There are plenty of serious issues they could actually be spending time trying to resolve. They could work together to try and find reasonable solutions to the problems that divide us. They could spend time in meetings with one another discussing various resolutions to complex issues. They could hold hearings with various parties and rationally discuss realistic ideas. They could prove they are mature adults working hard to make this nation a better place.

Instead they spend their time in what can only be called a dog and pony show. They think we are utter fools who won’t notice. I’m sad to say they’re probably right.

Tom Liberman

Why was Charlie Sheen forced to Land his Plane by Federal Agents?

Posted on by

charlie sheenCharlie Sheen was flying back from Mexico in a private plane when federal authorities forced it to land and inspected it for drugs. They removed every piece of luggage and used drug sniffing dogs to search everything. In the end, there were no illegal drugs found although one dog, unsurprisingly, gave a false positive. Unsurprisingly?

I’ll take a moment to rant about drug sniffing dogs. They are wrong more often than they are right and they are wrong even more frequently when the person being searched is a minority. An Australian study found they correctly identify drugs about twenty-six percent of the time, the rest being false positives. Basically, the dogs take cues from their handler and, sadly, are not infrequently used simply so police can harass citizens. It’s my opinion they should be banned completely. They allow agents of law enforcement to search anyone they want without cause. If the dog barks, police get to search you despite having no evidence of wrongdoing. It’s a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Another huge problem is that someone in the federal government has the power to halt a private flight apparently for the sole reason that you’re a celebrity who reportedly uses illegal drugs. They can search your plane without any evidence it actually has narcotics.

I think all drugs should be legal, but we currently have laws against them in this country and therefore I’ll acknowledge government agents can search you if they have probable cause to do so.

There might be more to the story. Perhaps someone in Mexico tipped off federal agents that drugs were aboard the plane. It seems much more likely to me that some bright agent doesn’t like Sheen all that much and decided to take a chance. I can see a self-righteous drug enforcement agent standing around the water cooler, eating a donut, waving a pen, and a little light bulb goes off in her or his head. “Hey, Charlie Sheen uses drugs. His plane flies around in Mexico. Let’s stop it and search it! That’ll be fun.”

I pay for the water in that cooler, the donut you’re eating, and the pen you’re writing with. I pay for phones you used to force the San Diego air traffic controllers to force down Sheen’s plane. I pay for those air traffic controllers! I pay for the gas you used to drive out to search his plane. I pay for the dogfood you feed your incredibly inaccurate detection dogs.

Sheen pays for that private flight. He pays more when the flight is diverted and searched. Did the government reimburse him for these expenses and the inconvenience? If so, that’s my tax dollars also!

Does anyone have to explain to a judge why they diverted Sheen’s plane and spent who knows how much money on a fruitless search? If so, can that person be fired?

It’s harassment, plain and simple.

I don’t much like Sheen. He’s arrogant and pretty much a jerk. He thinks because he has money and power he can do what he wants. The government is all of that multiplied by millions. They have all the money in the world, your money. They have all the power in the world except that which our judicial branch infrequently denies them.

When the War on Drugs forces me to defend Charlie Sheen, doesn’t that say it all?

Tom Liberman

Benefits and Drawbacks of a Government Shutdown

Posted on by

government shutdownThe United States Congress managed to cobble together a budget which allows the government to continue to operate for another four months, but President Trump has suggested just letting it stop, a government shutdown, would be beneficial. He’s right. There are some benefits to allowing the government to shut down but, naturally, there are drawbacks. I’d like to spend some time examining the positives and negatives.

The biggest benefit to allowing the government to shut down is to see how many services we assume are vital, are not so. Everyone has their own version of what is critically important. For one side of the fence, all military expenditures are necessary. For another, food aid cannot be done without. The reality is somewhere in between. There are plenty of places the budget is insanely bloated. I won’t go into details, but shutting down the government and seeing the results gives us a window into what is necessary and what is not.

Many of the services provided by government actually cause harm to the people they are trying to help. By putting certain programs in the hands of the government we become dependent on that entity. This means when the people in control of the purse strings change their priorities, we are at the mercy of government. If we took care of many of these issues ourselves through things like Crowdsourcing, we unbind the shackles that keep us chained.

The drawbacks are fairly self-evident. Everyone who lists a program that will no longer be funded, be it NASA, food stamps, or military bases; is correct. The people who go to work at these places, who use the salary earned to purchase basic necessities, who help other people; they will all be losers in a government shutdown.

A government shutdown will hurt literally millions of people. That’s why the last time it happened there was an enormous backlash against the party generally deemed responsible. That’s why those in power worked so feverishly to prevent it from happening again. They are well aware of the political consequences of letting it happen again. People on all sides of the spectrum are hurt by a government shutdown.

I must also speak briefly about why President Trump thinks a shutdown is necessary. He is upset he has to negotiate in order to implement spending policies. He hopes that the rules might be changed so he can autocratically implement budgetary items. This is, of course, a horrible outcome. The reason it is difficult to pass spending bills is because politicians must compromise with one another. The Founding Fathers did this intentionally. One of their main goals was to avoid a concentration of power in one person.

What would be nice is if the politicians voluntarily got together to cut wasteful spending. The deficit hole is far too large to solved with the sorts of cuts the current crop of politicians is proposing. There is no easy solution to the problem. It will take decades of fiscal restraint, careful management, and readjustment of priorities to get the United States back on sound monetary ground. I’m pretty skeptical it can happen.

That’s about it. The situation is not simple. There are benefits and drawbacks to a government shutdown.

Tom Liberman

Fyre Festival and the F35

Posted on by

fyre festivalWhen things go wrong in the private sector we have lawsuits available to redress the problem. When things go wrong in government, not so much. I’d like to take a moment to compare the Fyre Festival and the F35 Lighting II.

First the Fyre Festival. A couple of fellows named Ja Rule and Billy McFarland came up with an idea to have a music festival on an island in the Bahamas. The plan involved popular music artists and supermodels, ticket prices were extremely high. Everything went wrong.

Many people might say that the entire plan was a mistake but I’d disagree. One of the reason things went so badly is the number of people who paid to attend were far greater than the venue could accommodate. That clearly means people were quite interested in going to the festival.

A similar thing happened with the F35. It’s easy to say let’s build a single jet that does everything three other jets can do. We’ll save tons of money by having one plane with interchangeable parts. It seems like a good idea.

After the good plan is arrived upon, it is vital to hire pragmatic people who understand the details necessary to complete the project. People who understand the practicalities of organizing a complex festival or a technically challenging weapon’s platform.

That’s the problem with dreamers. They stop their ruminations seconds after telling everyone what a great idea it is. And it might well be a great idea, but without a plan and realistic implementation therein, it cannot come to fruition.

What happened with the Fyre Festival and the F35 is no one was willing or able to do the necessary hard work to pull either off in a timely fashion. There are two important differences. The first is the festival could actually fail whereas the F35 was going to continue on no matter how far delayed and how much money it cost.

The second is there is redress for those who suffered or lost money at the festival. For the taxpayers, there is no redress. Our money is gone. It is spent. There is no way to sue and get it back.

All the warning signs were there for both the event and the plane. The venue was horribly inadequate and it was apparently suggested to the organizers the festival simply be cancelled until next year. They chose to go on with it and now must suffer the consequences of the disaster. That’s a good thing, that’s what happens in the business world.

The technology to create the F35 really just didn’t exist and no one had ever done anything like it before. It relied on inventing technological solutions where none existed. It became clear fairly early on the three versions would not be nearly as interchangeable as hoped, the entire purpose of building the single plane. Costs skyrocketed as the plane’s deployment became delayed by years. Congress decided to go on with the project despite these problems.

This contrast of the private sector and government is stark. When someone shoots for the moon and ends up falling short, there must be consequences. Instead, we are the ones punished by being forced to foot the bill for their folly. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting awfully tired of politicians spewing out wild dreams and foregoing all practical planning. When things go awry, they just throw more money at the problem.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could file lawsuits against our politicians when projects they mismanage go hugely overbudget and even fail entirely? It seems like a nonsensical idea but we live in a nation where we get to elect our representatives. We can do whatever we want if we just vote for like-minded people.

Not that I’m holding my breath.

Tom Liberman

Noah Syndergaard and the MRI Refusal

Posted on by

noah syndergaardAn interesting situation I’ve been following in Major League Baseball regarding star pitcher Noah Syndergaard and a possible injury has been resolved, but it still raises interesting questions. Syndergaard seemed to have an injury to his shoulder and the New York Mets wanted him to see a doctor and receive a Magnetic Resonance Imaging to determine if there was any damage. Syndergaard refused.

Syndergaard then had a terrible outing in his next start and injured his side. He will now acquiesce to the Mets request and have a MRI. What right does Syndergaard have to refuse medical advice from the team and what expectation does the team have that he will follow such advice? Interesting questions.

There is a huge amount of money involved; although as a restricted player, Syndergaard earns a relatively small amount compared to his peers. He is considered one of the best young pitchers in the game and his presence on the mound sells tickets. The Mets have a vested interest in attempting to keep him as healthy as possible. Syndergaard himself is likewise motivated. If he stays healthy he will eventually earn a tremendous amount of money.

All this is rather tangential to the point. If the team wants Syndergaard to undergo a particular medical treatment does he have to do so? The answer is no, he does not. Syndergaard made a decision and the team has no ability to force him. Naturally, there are repercussions for such decisions. The team might base future contract negotiations on this refusal. Other teams might view the refusal in the same light. In the end, it is the player’s choice.

Syndergaard says he knows his body better than anyone else and his is the final decision. He is right about one thing, it is his decision to make.

Let’s take sport out of this and look at it from a business perspective. Let’s imagine the company you work for thinks there is a medical problem and tells you to get treatment. It might well be in your best interest to visit the doctor but it’s still your decision whether or not to do so. That’s liberty. And, finally, we get to my point.

Syndergaard made a poor decision in not getting an MRI. He doesn’t, in fact, know his own body as well as physicians. The Mets have every right to be angry at Syndergaard for refusing medical treatment and the fact his next start was terrible indicates as much. All teams in the future should be aware that Syndergaard is in the habit of denying an injury. All contract negotiations should take this into account.
We are free to choose the course of action we desire, even when that decision is not in our own best interest. When a baseball team or corporation can make medical decisions for you, that is a totalitarian state. We don’t live in one of those.

Being free means being able to make bad decisions. We are not children being told when to go to bed. We are adults and that’s a good thing, even when we fail to take advantage of it properly.

Tom Liberman

Trump and his View of the Civil War and Andrew Jackson

Posted on by

trump jackson civil warPresident Trump is of the opinion if Andrew Jackson was President of the United States around the time of the Civil War that he might have prevented it from occurring at all. It’s an interesting premise in a number of way.

Firstly, Jackson actually was president near the time of the Civil War. He left office only twenty-four years before hostilities broke out and the long simmering dispute was in full bloom during his term. While president, Jackson presided over what is called the Nullification Crisis. Jackson’s actions all but caused the Civil War to start earlier.

Legislators in South Carolina believed federal tariff laws were hurting the state’s economy. They passed legislation that essentially said laws created by Congress could be nullified by the states. Jackson sent in troops and eventually South Carolina, after some negotiating, backed down.

I suspect when Trump makes the suggestion that Jackson would have prevented the Civil War, he is referencing the Nullification Crisis and the resolution therein. It’s an interesting history lesson in what can happen in a short period of time. The twenty-four years that elapsed after the crisis and the beginning of the Civil War were dramatic.

The two presidents that preceded Lincoln were Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Both men knew the terrible danger of Civil War and did their best to appease the southern states and avoid the calamity. It is generally thought their inaction led to the conflict because it emboldened the southern states. They believed the northern states would never allow the country to go to war over the question of slavery.

Lincoln, on the other hand, was far more of a Jacksonian. He called the bluff of the southern states but, unlike at the time of Jackson, these states were now ready to push the issue. Thus, the Civil War began.

When Jackson made his stand, the circumstances were far different from the situation Lincoln found himself in. The lesson is important. We can learn from history but situations change. An action that led to one particular outcome yesterday can lead to an entirely different one tomorrow.

There is an apt idiom stating: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The idea is that someone who knows nothing about an issue generally does not attempt to fix a perceived problem. On the other hand, someone who has a small amount of knowledge might be willing to make a fix, but because their information is limited; that solution causes enormous problems.

Issues are enormously complex and fixes difficult. There is often no perfect solution to a particular problem. In the case of the Civil War, the two paths were both rather awful. One was the Civil War and the other was to continue to allow the abomination of slavery along with permitting the southern states inordinate power in comparison to their voting bloc.

The Civil War, it’s causes, and the events leading up to it are part of a complex tapestry that is not particular easy to piece together. What President Trump seems to be saying is that Jackson could have bluffed the south away from the issue of slavery. That by threatening them with war, they would have voluntarily abolished the peculiar institution. That is an example of making statements with little understanding of the issues involved.

That being said, his admiration of Jackson’s forthright style has merit. Someone should tell him that Lincoln was cut from the same cloth. That’s why the Civil War happened when it did, because Lincoln was behaving just like Jackson.

Tom Liberman

Brigitte Macron and Opinion and the Law

Posted on by

brigitte macronOne of the leading candidates to become the President of France is married to Brigitte Macron and their relationship brings up a number of interesting legal and societal questions. Emmanuel Macron met Brigitte when he was her fifteen-year-old student at La Providence High School in Amiens. She was thirty-nine at the time. They official announced they were dating when he turned seventeen.

The two eventually married when Emmanuel reached the age of thirty, shortly after she divorced her husband. He is the step-father to her three children, the oldest of whom is older than Emmanuel. All of this came to my attention thanks to a Facebook post expressing disgust at the relationship. Let the comments begin.

Some people are horrified by the age difference, while others don’t think it is anyone’s business. I’m certainly in the latter group. If people want to carry on affairs outside of marriage, I don’t much care. If a young man falls in love with an older woman, I don’t care. If an older woman has a relationship with a younger man, I don’t care. If a teacher and a fifteen-year-old student have an affair, I don’t really care. I know that last one is going to raise some ire.

The teacher is in a position of responsibility over a student and such an affair raises all sorts of questions about coercion. In the United States, if such a relationship occurred and was proven, Brigitte would have been tried and likely put in prison.

What’s important is that some people do care, and they have every right to their opinion. If they are outraged by this marriage, that’s their business to be disgusted. I don’t much care they are revolted. I think people are way too concerned about how other people carry on with their lives, but I’d be a hypocrite if I told them they shouldn’t be disgusted. That’s their choice.

If the laws in France allow for teachers and students to carry on sexual relationships then those are the laws of that country. I live in the United States and I have no more right to legislate in France than a French person has a right to pass laws in the United States.

If someone refuses to vote against Emmanuel because of this relationship, that is his or her right. If someone chooses to ignore the relationship and vote for him, that is also her or his decision to make.

The fact the two are now married leads me to believe their love was best for them, despite the age difference and the circumstances of their meeting. Certainly, you might disagree.

As a Libertarian I think it’s extraordinarily important people be allowed to their opinions and nations keep laws to a minimum. One of the first thing Totalitarian leaders do is attempt to force people to behave in certain ways. They do this primarily through legislation and personal attacks. The more power we vest in the state, the greater its ability to force us into a particular version of moral right.

Emmanuel and Brigitte have a relationship many might find disturbing. The fact they are legally allowed to do so is a good thing, and so is the right of some to withhold support for Emmanuel based on that relationship.

Tom Liberman

Oregon Engineers and the State Licensing Board

Posted on by

oregonThere’s a story in the news about a fellow in Oregon who was fined by the State Engineering board for claiming he’s an engineer when he’s not, at least not licensed in that state. The entire story involving the length of traffic lights is being debated in many places but I’d like to discuss a larger topic, state licensing boards. They’re a problem.

The first thing we must look at is why they exist in the first place. Why does someone have to actually be licensed to practice? The basic idea is that people can and do pretend to be things they are not in order to bilk people out of their money. There are many examples throughout history of this sort of behavior. Even today we see people practicing rudimentary forms of enhancement surgery that end up causing a great deal of harm.

If we have a listing of licensed practitioners, then people can review this list to ensure the person with whom they are dealing is actually capable of performing the job. Would you go to a doctor who wasn’t board certified? That’s the concept.

There is also the ability to remove the license from a dishonest or incompetent member. Lawyers are disbarred for unethical behavior fairly frequently.

I don’t doubt the good intentions behind these licensing boards. We don’t want to hire an unqualified engineer, doctor, or lawyer. Unfortunately, what many of these boards have become is simply revenue generating machines. Basically, pay the fee and get a license to be a massage therapist, a taxi-cab driver, a hairdresser, and on and on and on.

In this particular case, the board becomes a bullying agency and uses its power to punish anyone who even so much as attempts to levy a criticism against it. The state should never harbor those who attack opponents. It should be neutral, but unfortunately that’s not always the case.

These two trappings, money and power, have turned what for all appearances is a good idea into something insidious and terrible. I’m sure there are many excellent licensing boards out there. I’m certain many good people work for these boards and do their level best to make sure people performing professional services have the correct skillset to do so. I’m equally certain that quite a number of these boards exist almost exclusively to bully those with whom they disagree and as a source of revenue for the state or municipality.

I’m not one to pretend there are easy solutions to all these problems, but state required licensing is clearly not a perfect answer either. There are plenty of scam artists out there who paid the fee to get licensed but can’t perform the required services satisfactorily. There are plenty of qualified people out there performing services without licenses, simply because they can’t afford the process of getting one.

Basically, a licensed practitioner might be a scam artists while an unlicensed person might be perfectly capable.

What is the solution? Can we simply eliminate such boards and let the buyer beware? While that method depends on the intelligence and diligence of the consumer, it has its appeals in this information age in which we live. It is not difficult at all to go online and determine if that painting company has a track record of doing their job properly. Do we still need the government to license them? Particularly when we know the pitfalls of such licensing agencies.

Another option is to have a more liberal view of professional ability. In the case in question, the fellow being fined actually has a degree in engineering and practiced in his native country. He does not practice in Oregon and thus forego the time and expense of getting licensed. That the state did not recognize his skills in no way indicates he is not a capable engineer. His lack of licensing and obvious understanding of the subject matter prove this point.

What if we automatically conferred a license to every individual who graduates with the appropriate degree from a college or trade school? I recognize that we can get nitpicky about this. Perhaps the college is merely a diploma mill that doesn’t actually teach the students the required skills.

I think some combination of the above ideas is probably the closest we can get to a true solution. My hope is that technology will eventually give the consumer the information they need to operate without any sort of governmental intervention. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Tom Liberman

Rick Friday and the Cartoon that Got Him Fired

Posted on by

rick fridayA fellow named Rick Friday wrote a cartoon for Farm News in Iowa and was fired after one of his humorous pieces offended some people. Details are a bit fuzzy, but Friday indicated an editor of the Farm News told him a seed company dropped its advertisement, which in turn prompted Farm News to no longer publish Friday’s cartoons.

The cartoon in question points out that the CEOs of major agricultural businesses make far more money than the average Iowa farmer.

What should we make of this development? Is it a terrible thing? That’s certainly the general sentiment I’m reading. People are largely on the side of Friday and feel it is a terrible injustice that he lost his job. It’s the small farmer against the giant corporation. Most people will be rooting for the small farmer. I think the issue is far more complex than simply big guy versus little guy.

In this case, the farmers largely exist because of large agricultural businesses. Companies mentioned in Friday’s cartoon include Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, and John Deere although certainly others like Archer Daniels Midland exist. If it wasn’t for the research and development and technological know-how of these companies, most farms would simply not exist.

A farm that doesn’t take advantage of these technological marvels does not have nearly as much income as one that does. From modern machinery that costs millions of dollars to resistant seeds that prevent the loss of entire harvests; farmers are wholly and completely reliant on these businesses.

Likewise, farmers are the market for these companies. Without the farmers to buy the tractors and seed the fields, these companies go bankrupt. The two are wholly reliant upon each other.

What Friday wrote is completely true but it’s also a product of how much money the average farmer in Iowa makes as compared to the earnings of a multinational agricultural business. Companies like those mentioned generate billions of dollars in revenue. The leaders of businesses like that are compensated accordingly.

It is entirely proper for one of those businesses to withdraw advertising because they don’t like the content of a particular newspaper. Likewise, a farmer might decide to stop using the products from one of those companies in a similar fashion. Perhaps tens of thousands of farmers might stop doing so in response to the firing of Friday. That’s essentially the power of unionization. If they wanted to do it, if they found common ground, there is nothing to prevent them.

I sympathize with Friday. I think the company that withdrew their support in order to get Friday fired is being a bully and bringing unnecessary bad publicity upon itself. I think it shows not only a lack of good humor but also foregoes an opportunity for dialog. The farmers have a complaint. It wouldn’t hurt to address it.

Finally, I have words of advice for Friday: Be careful when you bite the hand that feeds you, it might stop providing food.

Tom Liberman

Why China Bans Baby Names

Posted on by

china-babyChina has come a long way toward embracing capitalism but, make no mistake about it, they still harbor many of the ideologies of a totalitarian state. This became evident when authorities restricted baby names in the Xinjiang region.

I think it’s important to understand the thinking that led to this ridiculous law. The region is largely populated by Muslims. Muslims are responsible for a great deal of the terrorism that occurs in the world. The leaders of China are rightly concerned the people of this region might commit horrific acts of violence and kill innocents. Certain baby names are associated with terrorism. Arafat, Muhammad, and Jihad among them.

Their solution is to forbid parents from giving their children such names. They think by removing the name, they are removing the idea from peoples’ heads. This is, naturally, utter nonsense. When we restrict the rights and freedoms of people, we only encourage them to become violent. By and large people are terrorists because they feel crushed by an oppressive government that gives them no other options.

The freer a people are to influence their government, they less likely they are to commit acts of terrorism. Why risk your life or hurt others when all you have to do is organize a vote and take over the government?

This peaceful transition of power is possibly the most important factor in creating a stable government. When President Obama takes over for President Bush, when President Trump takes over for Obama, sure, people wail and moan but it is done at the voting booth, not at the point of a gun. When Republicans lost power in 2008 they simply went about trying to win it back. Now that Democrats are out of power they are working hard to regain it; it’s almost certain at some point in the future they will.

In the United States, there are very few restrictions on baby names and these are associated with practicality. Babies can’t have numerical names, babies can’t have names over a certain number of characters, there are some restriction on various non-alpha characters. There are some obscenity bans but those probably wouldn’t hold up to a court review.

The reason I spend all this time illustrating the difference between the way the United States handles the authority of a parent to name their child as opposed to China is to illustrate the difference between a state of mind. In China, the leaders maintain an authoritarian position. They think because they want something to be, they can make laws and it will be so. This is, of course, delusional.

In the United States, we have a history of personal freedom and independence. Our politicians might want to prevent someone from naming their child Jesus Christ or Adolph Hitler. They might find those names sacrilegious or tastelessly disgusting; but they don’t pass laws preventing it because they realize we wouldn’t stand for it. We have a strong judiciary that will check any such impulses from politicians no matter how popular such initiatives might be.

Do not let these facts deter you from thinking people like those in China do not exist here in the United States. There are people out there plotting to pass laws trying to force you to lead the life they think acceptable. There are all sorts of ridiculous laws already out there. In some places in our great nation you can’t wear baggy pants without violating the law. There are laws about how you can engage in sexual gratification with another consenting adult in almost every state. Many places restrict when you can drink and most places ban putting particular chemicals into your body.

When China goes about banning a particular baby name they do it for a reason. They rationalize their law in many ways. They convince the population that doing so will make the people safer. They believe by controlling how other people think and act they make the world a better place. Such laws do exactly the opposite. They create criminals, they engender violence and terrorism, and they stomp upon freedom.

When you learn of a law being proposed that matches with your ethical or moral compass; think twice before throwing your support behind it. If you can force your way of life on someone else, they can do the same to you once they gain control.

Tom Liberman