Jordan Spieth and Professional Autograph Sellers

Posted on June 14, 2016 by Tom Liberman

There was an interesting story from the United States Golf Open this morning that I think gives us a fairly keen insight into the nature of capitalism, both good and bad.

A professional golfer by the name of Jordan Spieth refused to sign autographs for two adults while signing for a child who was being “smooshed” by said adults. Spieth determined, and I absolutely believe he was correct, that the adults were what are called Professional Autograph Seekers. Such people collect autographs for resale at such outlets as eBay.

This practice has angered quite a number of celebrities from politicians to athletes to actors and beyond. Many of them have instituted policies to try and ensure their autographs only go to those who want them as a souvenir rather than as a money generator.

There are several thoughts behind this line of thinking.

One of the main arguments is that the celebrities can and do make a great deal of money by selling their own signature. That professionals are simply stealing profits that are legitimately the celebrity’s.

Another is that time spent signing for professionals takes away from available time to sign for legitimate fans who want a personal souvenir.

Both reasons are legitimate and I certainly don’t have a problem with Spieth, or any other celebrity, who tries to limit their signature when it comes to professionals.

But now I’ll come to the point of today’s blog. The economic reality is that there is a ready-market of people willing to pay fairly significant sums for those signatures. Where there is a market there will be suppliers. Suppliers will find a way to meet demand. Professional Autograph Seekers pay children to collect signatures. They seek autographs through the mail. There really isn’t much a celebrity can do except stop signing altogether. That, of course, deprives those who want a souvenir both at live events and at auction sites.

It’s a situation that brings to light the full gamut of capitalism. Good and bad.

The selling of signatures makes money for the celebrity and the Professional Autograph Seeker. It means that many people who want a signature as a souvenir get it despite never being in close proximity to the celebrity. Those are both good things.

It also means that the amateur is often pushed out of the way. That a child who wants an autograph is smooshed. Let’s not mince words. Celebrities don’t sit and sign until the last person is gone. They have limited time and every professional means one less signature for an actual fan.

There really is no villain here. Spieth wants to give his signature to people who value it for personal significance. Professional Autograph Seekers are simply making money from a ready market. Those buying on eBay or other outlets are spending their money freely knowing full well who is selling the autograph.

A politicians might try to outlaw selling signatures that are not your own and thus create a giant black-market with all the violence and fraud such illicit underground situations always bring.

The world ain’t always pretty and many times there just isn’t an equitable fix. Striving to find political fixes for things that cannot be fixed leads to bigger problems than the original issues. Don’t do it!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead – Libertarian Movie Review

Posted on June 8, 2016 by Tom Liberman

I was out and about the other night and an attractive woman sat next to me with her date. During the course of their conversation, to which I was listening vaguely, she mentioned a Christina Applegate movie about babysitting and it reminded me of an underrated gem. Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s dead. So, of course, it’s time for a Libertarian Movie Review.

The Story

In the movie Applegate’s character, Sue Ellen, is the eldest of five siblings left home under the care of an elderly babysitter while her mother takes a summer vacation to Australia. Trouble ensues when the babysitter dies and the teens have no money to support themselves. Rather than call their mother they decide to try to make it on their own.

Sue Ellen has aspirations of a career in the fashion industry but takes a minimum wage job in fast food. She soon quits because she is being treated horribly by a manager. She then creates a false resume hoping to get a job as a receptionist at a fashion house. Impressed by the resume, a company executive hires Sue Ellen as an assistant.

Sue Ellen excels at her job and impresses her boss although also gains the enmity of a jealous co-worker. Meanwhile her marijuana obsessed brother is forced to feed the family on a small budget and finds that he loves cooking.

Eventually Sue Ellen ends up hosting an important fashion party for the struggling company. Her stoner brother provides an elegant dining experience while her younger siblings help as best the can.

In the end she is found out by her conniving and less competent co-worker and also the return of her mother. Rose, the executive played by Joanna Cassidy, is not dismayed and offers Sue Ellen a permanent job. Sue Ellen refuses but is promised by her now former boss help in gaining admittance to a prestigious college.

Meanwhile her brother and other siblings all gain by the experience and become the better for it.

Why it Works

From a Libertarian perspective there is a lot to like about this movie. Sue Ellen wants a career in fashion and refuses to settle for a fast food job with a terrible manager. She lies on her resume and aims high. Once on the job she solves problems creatively and effectively despite sabotage from a co-worker. Her brother is wasting his life smoking marijuana but stumbles upon a career that peaks his interest and goes for it with as much gusto as Sue Ellen. When Sue Ellen is discovered she admits her guilt to all and is willing to accept the consequences.

Finally, and I think in one of the most important scenes in the movie, when Sue Ellen is found out by Rose all is not lost. Certainly Sue Ellen did wrong by writing a false resume but once in the position she achieved astounding success. Rose recognizes this and does not punish Sue Ellen. She instead rewards her.

Had Sue Ellen failed at her job then punishment is certainly deserved but, in this case, she did not. Sue Ellen took a chance, broke a rule, and found tremendous success in a field she loves. She also helped her brother find his way and her younger siblings as well.

Five Freedoms

I give it a rating of Five Freedoms. A hidden gem worth watching by everyone, not just Libertarians.

Tom Liberman

Online Poker is a Life of Hard Work and Little Money – so Why do it?

Posted on June 6, 2016 by Tom Liberman

I’ve been watching people play poker on twitch.tv lately it’s got me thinking about some things.

I started watching a fellow named Jason Somerville and then also began to follow two other players, Lex Veldhuis and Parker Talbot. All three are extraordinarily good players and also entertaining personalities who explain their decisions in an informative way. Somerville in particular is a highly watched streamer who does an exceptional job teaching the game and also entertaining the audience.

So why the blog? Good question. After watching all three of these very strong poker players play for many hours I realized they aren’t winning much money and on many days losing money. That’s not to say they aren’t making money by the end of the year but what I saw was them playing for many, many hours in long tournaments with thousands of players (called Grinding in poker vernacular) for a small return on their hours of investment.

Then, for a change, I watched a few other plays who clearly did not possess the skill or temperament of Somerville, Veldhuis, and Talbot. Not only were they spending hours and hours playing, they were largely losing money! And quite happily I might add.

The first lesson I took from all this is that I have no business sitting at an online poker table. Even if I’m at a small stake tournament, some can be entered for as little as a dime, I’d merely be spending a lot of time and losing money. I have literally no chance to win against more skilled opponents. The more I would play, the more I would lose.

It quickly became clear to me that the vast majority of people playing poker online are either losing money or earning money at a rate far below any minimum wage job. So why are tens of thousands, if not more, people gleefully doing so?

I think it can be argued that the allure of riches plays a part but I don’t think that’s the primary reason so many people are attracted to online poker. While the riches are certainly there it is not the same as purchasing a lottery ticket. In order to get the riches hard work is required.

What I think is going on is much deeper. It taps into why I’m a Libertarian and also into very nature of what it is to be human. We want to be free. We want to work hard at something we enjoy and be rewarded for doing so. Those things bring us happiness and joy.

After watching Somerville, Veldhuis, and Talbot for many hours some things became very clear to me. All three are not simply dolts who happen to be good at poker. All three are highly intelligent and thoughtful. They spoke of subjects beyond poker with strong words and rational logic. It is clear to me that all three would be successful in whatever endeavor they chose, they just happened to have picked a field they enjoy and at which they excel. Wise choices, my friends.

And a shining example for the rest of us.

Do what you love. Work hard at it. Be pragmatic in your decisions. You’ll be happy, perhaps rich or perhaps not.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Wisconsin Prison Bans Dungeons and Dragons

Posted on May 31, 2016 by Tom Liberman

A story that hits me in my proverbial breadbasket just came across the wires. The Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin banned playing Dungeons and Dragons (no word on Pathfinder) by inmates.

I’m a role-playing game enthusiast to say the least. I love playing such games. I think it’s ridiculous that those in power think playing the game might encourage escape fantasies among the inmates. I imagine the escape fantasies are already on their mind. A fellow named Kevin T. Singer is incarcerated at that institution and had a regular Dungeons and Dragons game with fellow inmates.

Let’s cut to the chase. Prison officials do not believe that playing Dungeons and Dragons constitutes an escape or violence risk. They just wanted to make life more difficult for Singer. They found a ridiculous rational for doing so, implemented it, and laughed as they took away his books and homemade material. Ha, they said, we’re in charge and we get to tell you what to do.

The courts agreed. Even though there is no evidence that such games cause troubles in prisons (because they don’t), the court sided with the prison.

Sadly, I agree with the courts. The removal of role-playing games is something the prison can enforce. The inmates have been duly convicted of a crime. A particularly brutal murder in this case. The authorities run the prison and unless they are taking away a Constitutionally guaranteed right, they can do as they will.

My message today is for the prison officials. You are not making Wisconsin or this nation any safer. By using your power to bully and punish a prisoner, for the simple reason that you can, you actually increase the chance said prisoner will learn to hate authority figures all the more. The prison should run the damned game, if you’ll pardon my choice language. They should encourage inmates to work as a team and learn to appreciate those in authority don’t have to be jackbooted thugs. That they can actually be interested in the well-being of their charges.

Being in a position of authority is a tremendous responsibility. You can influence people in a good way and make this world a better place or you satisfy your sadistic urges to hurt and demean people.

I’m certainly not saying Singer is a wonderful person. The fact remains that he and other prisoners may someday return to society. Isn’t it in our best interest to make sure they return better than they went in, not worse?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Harambe the Gorilla and Lessons to be Learned

Posted on May 30, 2016 by Tom Liberman

A tragic incident occurred recently in Cincinnati that is making headlines and evoking passionate debate among many people.

A young boy willfully climbed into the gorilla pen at the Cincinnati zoo and when a male gorilla named Harambe started to become more aggressive, the zoo’s Dangerous Animal Response team shot and killed the gorilla.

Passions are running high among those who think the zoo did the right thing and those who think the zoo handled the situation improperly. One of the positions I see being taken is that the zoo is responsible for the enclosure not being secure enough to prevent entry and they are to blame. That all the enclosures must be designed to prevent anyone from entering. That’s the argument I’d like to look at today.

What I want to talk about today, Memorial Day, is the commonly stated belief that Freedom isn’t Free. I disagree with that idea. I think Freedom is Free. There is nothing more free in this world than freedom. Don’t get me wrong. I well understand that other people desire to take away my freedom. Those other people include both foreign and domestic enemies and my own government. I understand that to protect my freedom people must make sacrifices. I do not disregard the sacrifices made in order to protect me and others.

That being said, Freedom is mostly certainly free. It’s just quite dangerous. It might be possible to make every zoo enclosure more difficult to penetrate but there is no way to have a zoo and also have it so that a determined visitor cannot gain access to an exhibit. It is in the nature of a zoo where wild and dangerous animals are kept that there will be danger. Certainly the zoo should make efforts to keep the enclosures and wild animals separate from the visitors but if we want to have zoos at all, we must face that fact that a determined child or adult might be able to put themselves in danger. That’s freedom.

We could make it more safe, certainly. We could make zoos illegal altogether. We could insist that zoos spend astronomical sums of money to enclose every exhibit in bullet proof glass.

We could remove all traffic signals and thus be more free to drive as we will without restrictions. Or we could pass more and more traffic laws. We could put monitors in cars to prevent any sort of dangerous driving. The choice between freedom and safety is a serious one.

Those who wish to take our freedom often guise their desires with soothing words about only doing it to protect us.

My point is that we must accept danger if we love freedom. We must understand that terrible things can happen. That the government and the zoo cannot completely prevent horrible outcomes. We must mourn the death of Harambe. We must accept the danger if we are to remain free.

The alternative is to be perfectly safe at all times … in our locked and hermetically sealed chamber.

What will you choose?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

The System isn’t Always Rigged – Libertarian Convention

Posted on May 29, 2016 by Tom Liberman

As many of my democratic and republican friends lament the “rigged” system in which a series of complex rules bind or do not bind delegates to a particular candidate during their party’s nomination process, another system was on display this weekend in Orlando, Florida.

My party, the Libertarians had their convention. You probably didn’t hear much about it for a number of a reasons. One reason is that Libertarian candidates do not generate many votes, they hold no national offices, and precious few state positions. There is another reason and one I’d like to offer up as a contrast between the way the Republican and Democrats do things as compared to Libertarians.

We’ve had a long nomination cycle, which continues, in which voters in each state and territory of the union vote for candidates. Delegates then cast their vote for the candidate. The Republicans and Democrats have complex rules about how delegates can vote and many are bound to the choices the voters made. These rules are changed and modified each year, largely in an attempt to get a particular candidate nominated. Look up the Ron Paul rule for an example.

At the Libertarian Convention a delegate is bound only by her or his conscience. There is no state by state vote. Rules are not arranged to ensure a particular candidate is guaranteed victory or an upstart is shunted to the back of the room. The Libertarian Convention almost always has a Contested Convention. That is a convention in which none of the candidates receives 50% of the vote. Thus diplomacy comes into play in vote after vote until a consensus is finally reached.

In a Libertarian Convention delegates are not barred if they represent a candidate who stands little chance of winning. Delegates feel free to boo the candidates who express ideas with which they disagree. The room is not filled with flag-waving non-delegates designed give the impression of unity and support. Libertarians welcome dissent. Like in life, we embrace opposition for it is only by testing ourselves that we reach our full potential. It is only by listening to alternate ideas that we come to know all our options.

Now you know how we do things. Which system do you think is best?

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

It’s not the Beard, it’s the Rule – Andrew Jones Graduation

Posted on May 23, 2016 by Tom Liberman

There’s a story all over the news this morning about a young man who was not allowed to participate in the graduation ceremony with his class because he had a beard.

There seem to be largely two takes on the story.

1. A rule is a rule and Andrew Jones should have followed the rule. He was given a chance to shave his beard but refused.

2. He was allowed to wear his beard all year long at school but the district decided to enforce the rule only at the graduation, therefore the rule is being arbitrarily and unfairly applied.

I have a third opinion, no surprise. Why is there such a rule in the first place? What does a beard have to do with a public education? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against rules. No running with scissors. Why? Because you might take out your eye or stab someone else in a fall. No talking in class. Why? Because it prevents the teacher from communicating the lesson.

I’m also not pretending there is no reason for the rule. It has a very definite purpose. It is a rule created to show the students who is in charge. It is a rule designed to acclimate young minds to the idea that they must follow pointless guidelines instituted by small people who delight in their trivial taste of power. Who all but masturbate because they get to enforce their will upon a captive audience.

Jones attends Amite High School in the Tangipahoa Parish School System in Louisiana. Tangipahoa Superintendent Mark Kolwe insisted the rule was fine and they would enforce it the entire year in the future rather than selectively at graduation.

Yuck. Petty bureaucrats reveling in their power and enforcing their stupidity.

Mr. Jones. You graduated. You excelled during your time in high school. Small minds stole your moment to celebrate with your fellow students. I have a lesson for you. It won’t be the last time your inferiors try to bend you to their will with useless and petty rules. Sometimes you will be tempted to forgo you principles, to shave your beard, so that you might get along. My advice? Fuck them.

If you must give up things like a graduation ceremony in order to be true to yourself, you have won. You have defeated the reptiles of the world who hope to destroy you for the simple reason that you are better than they will ever be.

Success lies ahead. Keep on your path, Mr. Jones. Stay your course.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Amazon Book Giveaway Clause

Posted on May 20, 2016 by Tom Liberman

I recently released The Gray Horn for purchase on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Smashwords and I decided I might do a Giveaway promotion at Amazon. It’s where you give away a book for free to a limited number of customers in the hopes of getting reviews and generating “buzz”.

I haven’t done it before but I was thinking, what the heck. As I went through the process I clicked on the ubiquitous Terms and Conditions button and gave it my usual cursory glance. Then I stumbled on item 6.

You grant us a royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use, reproduce, perform, display, distribute, adapt, modify, excerpt, analyze, re-format, create derivative works of, and otherwise commercially or non-commercially exploit in any manner, any and all of Your Materials, and to sublicense the foregoing rights; provided that nothing in this Agreement will prevent or impair our right to use Your Materials without your consent to the extent that such use is allowable without a license from you or your Affiliates under applicable Law (e.g., fair use under United States copyright law, referential use under trademark law, or valid license from a third party).

I mean to say …

Holy s***!

Are you kidding me? That’s more than just terms and conditions. That’s some serious rights I’m giving away. I was rendered speechless. Which, if you know me, is no small feat.

I thought I’d pass it along just for general knowledge to anyone else thinking about going with a Giveaway promotion on Amazon. Frankly, you should read all the Terms and Conditions but it’s hard because they make them so long and difficult.

Have a great day!

Oh, and buy my books. Only $2.99. Write reviews! They help, they really do.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

The Gray Horn – Available Now

Posted on May 16, 2016 by Tom Liberman

The Gray Horn is now available for sale at Amazon, Smashwords, and Barnes and Noble for $2.99 at all locations.

Volorious is a young mercenary employed in an endless war between two implacable enemies. Or so it seems.

As his company is mistreated by both combatants he slowly comes to realize that the war serves the interests of both nation states at the expense of the people. He along with his friends eventually decide to strike out on their own in search of the fabled Gray Horn that is desired by both sides in the war.

In this quest he comes to examine the nature of the two enemies, Thrimbar the Divine and Jojus the Demonic. Are they truly opposite sides in a conflict with one another or are they actually simply one in the same with a different banner. If the divine and the demonic are equal, then is there a second choice? Does the coin have another side upon which people can choose a different way?

I appreciate everyone’s support and I hope you enjoy reading it!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Two Games for One Date

Posted on May 16, 2016 by Tom Liberman

Lately I’ve been using Tinder, without a lot of success, to meet women but I have noticed an interesting sociological interplay. I’m working on a pretty small sample size and if everything I mention in this blog is horribly wrong, please don’t hesitate to eviscerate me in the comments.

What I’ve noticed is the women with whom I make an initial connection ask me a lot of questions. A lot. I, on the other hand, ask a few questions but pretty much spend all my time telling the prospective date about me and my peculiarities. It seems like both of us are playing the same game, for lack of a better word, but we are playing by completely different rules.

Basically I’m hoping to meet the woman for perhaps a drink and a bite to eat. If it turns out we’re incompatible, I’m simply out the price of her preferred drink and a few appetizers. If it turns out she’s an absolute nut, I have a great story for my friends later.

But what about her? What does she have to lose? A quick perusal of any news channel indicates that she has to fear bodily harm, rape, kidnapping, and murder. Those are pretty high stakes indeed.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not asserting that women are completely non-violent and are incapable of meeting a man for a date and doing him harm. I’m just saying that the possibility is so low on my radar that I don’t even consider it when texting on Tinder. I imagine that it’s pretty much the opposite for a woman.

I don’t have any deep philosophical revelations based on this observation. No meaningful insights. Just something I noticed. It gives me a small window into the world of being a woman. An unpleasant reality in some ways.

Maybe I’m wrong. It’s certainly possible.

What do you think?

Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Government to Regulate e-Cigarettes but Why?

Posted on May 5, 2016 by Tom Liberman

Electronic Cigarettes burst onto the market in 2004 and now the government plans to regulate them in the same way they do traditional tobacco products. This despite the fact that e-cigarettes don’t use tobacco.

Today I’d like to address an issue slightly deeper than just this particular piece of legislation which was announced in 2014 giving producers two years to submit an application for approval. This application costs money and the e-cigarette manufacturers are claiming an approval must be submitted for every flavor and nicotine level available for sale. They claim the costs for such submissions would drive out all the small market e-cigarette manufacturers leaving only the largest companies.

I don’t know if this is true or not but I do know that the justification for such regulations and applications is outdated. There was a time when the internet did not exist and getting accurate information about the efficacy and danger of particular products was nearly impossible. I can understand that government officials felt it their responsibility to prevent essentially toxic products from being put on the market without at least some sort of warning.

I’m not opposed to the government employing a laboratory to test the content and health effects of tobacco, alcohol, and other products. I’m not opposed to the government using my tax dollars to disseminate information about said products on government managed websites. I think those are good things. I’m not under the illusion that a business would never market a harmful product with deceptive advertising and cover up the dangers. That sort of thing happens all the time, greed and human nature being what they are. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish.

However, with the advent of the internet and the availability of information I don’t see why the manufacturer has to provide relatively useless warnings on their labels and apply for expensive approvals. It seems to me that such rules and regulations are not intended for the safety of the population but simply generate revenue for the government and empower Crony Capitalism in order to support the largest manufacturers who fund political campaigns.

This is not the job of government.

The Information Age is a fundamental change in the nature of the world. For a Libertarian like myself it is the opening of a door into a utopia of personal freedom. If I want to use a product I can do my research and find out its nature. If I plan to buy a chicken from the grocery store, I can learn about the factory or local farm that raised it and how that chicken lived its life. Then I can make an informed decision on which chicken to buy. This was not possible until recently.

I’ll repeat, I do think the government has a right and responsibility to inspect, collect information, run tests, and publish the results for all to see. After that it is up to us. Should we choose to smoke tobacco then we know the risks and suffer the consequences of our actions.

We must trust people to live their lives in the manner they choose. We may not like. It might not be healthy. But it is ultimately their life and their decision. If they have the information they need to make an informed choice, that is all we can do. If we try to make that decision for them, even for their benefit, we end up causing far more harm in the long run.

As I point out in The Girl in Glass I – Apparition, freedom is free, it’s just not safe.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Hunter Osborn and the Penis that Traumatized Everyone

Posted on May 4, 2016 by Tom Liberman

**UPDATE – All charges have been dropped**

Really? A felony for exposing your penis in a group photo of the football team?

Yep, that’s what it’s come to in this great country of ours. Hunter Osborn pulled down his football pants just enough to expose his penis in the team picture. The prank went unnoticed and the picture was placed in the school yearbook.

Osborn is now being charged with sixty-nine (yes, ha ha) counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure, one each for his clearly traumatized teammates, and a felony count of furnishing harmful items to minors, presumably other students who purchased the yearbook.

Smart move by Osborn? Probably not, but good grief, have we no sense of humor? First off his sixty-nine teammates share a locker room with him. I strongly suspect they’ve seen his penis before. I suspect they’ve seen quite a number of them over the years. I played sports, I was in locker rooms, boys have penises, is that the right word? What is the plural of penis? Do I care? No. Penises it is.

Does anyone actually think this image was harmful to minors?

Have the police in Mesa, Arizona not heard of the internet? Pictures of penises abound, and breasts as well, you might, if you look hard, even find a vagina, ahhh! Run, hide the children! They must not see a penis, breast, or vagina lest they be emotionally scarred.

It was a silly prank but let’s face reality, no one was hurt. There was a time when the football coach would have made Osborn clean the locker room for a week the whole time snickering away and remembering some of his own youthful indiscretions.

And poor Osborn is saying things like he was disgusted by his behavior? Is that the kind of adults we want to raise? Disgusted by showing his penis in a football picture? It’s stupid but, frankly, kind of a funny.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Princeton could use a guy like Joel.

Tom Liberman

Life Ain’t Fair – Just ask Hikaru Nakamura

Posted on April 29, 2016 by Tom Liberman

I wrote a blog post about a chess player named Hikaru Nakamura who was penalized for breaking a rule in chess a few weeks back and something happened yesterday that painfully illustrates the old adage that life just ain’t fair.

In that case Nakamura moved his piece, took his hand off of it, and then tried to further move it. His opponent, Levon Aronian, immediately called this a violation and Nakamura was forced to put his piece on the original square. This cost him the game.

Tough but fair. Them’s the rules. Or are they?

Nakamura just finished playing in the United States Chess Championship where he finished in a tie for second place. After the match the tournament scheduled a special Blitz Chess match between the top three players in the tournament and legendary chess player Gary Kasparov.

Kasparov is 53 years old and has been largely retired from chess competitions for the last ten years. He is considered one of the greatest players in the history of the game and some consider him the clear best. That, of course, is debatable.

Well, why today’s blog? Because in a Blitz matchup against Nakamura; Kasparov did exactly the same thing as Nakamura did in his match against Aronian. Nakamura saw him do it and a wry expression came across his face. Why? Because he was totally screwed.

If Nakamura called the legendary Kasparov for the rules violation, everyone is going to consider Nakamura a bad guy. While there is a fairly large amount of money available to the winner of the Blitz tournament, it is largely an exhibition for fans to watch one of the all time greats take on some of the best United States players of today. If Nakamura doesn’t call Kasparov then he is throwing away an important advantage.

Well, Hikaru, I don’t have to tell you, life ain’t fair.

That is today’s lesson people. Sometimes you have to give life a wry smile and move on. I feel for you Hikaru. At least this one blogger thinks you made the right call, however, if it happens again, throw down the hammer!!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Mistakenly Demoted for Political Beliefs – Hefferan v. Paterson

Posted on April 28, 2016 by Tom Liberman

An absolutely fascinating case was decided by the Supreme Court this week. This case demonstrates why I find law such an intriguing subject.

A fellow named Jeffrey Hefferan was demoted from his job as a detective in the Paterson, NJ police department after he was spotted picking up a political sign for an opponent of the sitting mayor. Said mayor was friendly with the police chief.

It’s clear this action is unconstitutional. You cannot punish an employee for expressing a political preference for one candidate over another. However, believe it or not, that’s not actually what happened. Hefferan was picking up the sign for his mother. He was not expressing a political opinion as is his First Amendment right. He was demoted not for political speech but by mistake. Therefore being demoted wasn’t unconstitutional, or at least that’s the argument the city of Paterson made before the Supreme Court.

The court ruled 6 – 2 in favor of Hefferan.

I agree with the court and let me explain why. The two justices who dissented, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, agree with the city of Paterson because Hefferan wasn’t demoted for his protected First Amendment rights, he was demoted by people mistakenly believing he was expressing said rights. This is an insistence upon a Strict Constructionism interpretation of the Constitution. If we are to take the Constitution for its literal meaning instead of its intent then Thomas and Alito are correct in this case.

I argue that the point of a law is its intent. The question Strict Constructionists then demand is: Who determines intent?

Judges, that’s who. That’s the whole point. The written word is always going to fall short of the intent of the law. I certainly don’t like judges who interpret in a manner that expands the Constitution beyond what I consider reasonable but I cannot indulge in the intellectual deceit that there is no such thing as interpretation. Every case is based on interpretation of ambiguous words. Alito and Thomas rely on volumes of interpretation of the First Amendment. Is a political sign actually Freedom of Speech? Speech literally is the spoken word, not the written word. It has long been interpreted to mean the written word but that’s not the literal meaning of the Free Speech section of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment reads thus: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,…

Congress is not passing a law of any kind in this case. A local law enforcement agent demoted a subordinate. A Strict Constructionist must agree that any government official can fire anyone for their political beliefs at any time. By this logic a state could pass a law making being a Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian illegal. They could imprison those who dissent. After all it is not Congress passing said laws.

We must always consider intent, even if that interpretation is wrong at times.

It we insist on Strict Constructionism the Constitution becomes a worthless piece of paper.

Of course Hefferan was demoted for his political opinions. His political opinions were mistakenly identified, that’s true, but the underlying reason he was demoted remains clear and unmistakable.

The Constitution guarantees that we can speak our political minds and not be punished by the government for so doing, even if the wording does not explicitly express such. Hefferan works for the government. He cannot be demoted for either expressing his political opinion or by someone who mistakenly thinks he is expressing his political opinion. They are one in the same.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Is it Okay to Root for Nazi?

Posted on April 19, 2016 by Tom Liberman

Nazi Paikidze, that is.

The annual United States Chess Championships, both men’s and women’s divisions, are being held at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center in St. Louis for the next few days and the aforementioned woman is a leading contender for the title.

Let’s all admit it, when we see the word Nazi certain things come to mind. We cannot deny this bias against the word. It has a meaning far beyond her name. When I heard her name at last year’s championship the first thought I had was: She would be wise to change it. I’m not proud of that thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that she should use her name proudly. She has nothing to do with the definition we generally associate with that word. She is a young woman who is an excellent chess player and, by all accounts, a great role-model for young girls everywhere.

It does get me to thinking about the unconscious biases we have in our daily lives. If I was robbed by a person who wore a red shirt then when I see someone in a same colored shirt I become slightly afraid. If I was in a car accident caused by a someone driving a particular make and model of car then when I see a similar car I immediately become more alert. It’s certainly not fair to the person in the red shirt or the driver of the other car but it is unquestionably true, much as we might like to pretend it is not.

We cannot avoid such biases for we are human and we have lived. Things have happened to us. Events and people harmed us and we associate said events with what the person was wearing, the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, and any myriad of other things.

The reality is that we must judge people by their actions, not the color of their shirts, their names, or any other superficial feature. Such a world is the one we Libertarians yearn to live upon and yet I am as susceptible to such biases as anyone else.

My point? I’m not sure. I guess I’m saying that I’ll be trying to overcome such thoughts and I hope you will as well.

P.S. Go Nazi!

Tom Liberman

Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, and the role of Government

Posted on April 14, 2016 by Tom Liberman

Overview

There’s a fairly big story in the news about a company called Theranos and its founder, a woman named Elizabeth Holmes.

Holmes founded Theranos based on the idea that they could perform accurate lab tests with a few drops of blood, using a secret test called Edison, when before it took vials to do the same thing. The promise of such tests and the charisma of Holmes was enough to attract over $800 million in investments. The original claims of Holmes, who attended Stanford in an attempt to get a degree in Chemical Engineering but dropped out, were met with skepticism by the medical community but that didn’t stop hopeful investors.

Building the Labs

Theranos built their labs and began performing tests for companies like Walgreen’s. Eventually it came out that the Edison test Holmes and Theranos claimed was accurate was anything but. Their lab conditions did not meet any sort of standards and they were actually using machines built by competitors, not Edison testing machines.

At one point Theranos tried to get a contract with the United States military. Military inspectors found serious problems in Theranos labs and asked the Food and Drug Administration to step in and investigate. This request was denied by Marine Corps General James Mattis. Mattis then retired and took, among other things, a position on the Board of Directors of Theranos.

The latest news is that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is considering banning Holmes and Theranos from owning or operating a laboratory for up to two years. They became embroiled because the company was collecting money from those government services.

Role of Government

That’s all background though. What I find interesting is the role of the government in all of this. What Holmes did was clearly dangerous to many people. Patients and their physicians were getting bad lab results and acting in good faith on them. Investors believed the lies of Holmes and gave her a great deal of money.

What I want to examine is how Theranos was eventually brought down, or at least curtailed.

It all started when the Wall Street Journal published an article back in October of 2015 citing many problems in Theranos labs and also numerous inaccurate statements made by Holmes. She claimed partners that did not exist and regulation approvals from the government that had not been issued. Later that month the Food and Drug Administration stepped in because they had not tested the Edison equipment (Theranos was claiming it had been approved). Soon after this Walgreen’s, Safeway, and the Cleveland Clinic Hospital pulled out of contracts with Theranos.

Conclusions

This is all good. I’m totally on-board with this. This is government doing what it is supposed to do. It made information available, thanks in no small part to media intervention from the Wall Street Journal, which then allowed businesses like Walgreen’s to make informed decisions.

My anarchist friends will argue that the result would have been arrived at without the government at all. My social democratic friends will argue that with all that money involved it was only the government that allowed the story to come out at all, businesses would have covered it up otherwise.

To my way of thinking it is the combination of the two that offers the best results. Government gives us pertinent information and lets businesses and people make the final decisions.

It’s certainly not perfect but suspect nothing is.

Tom Liberman

Binge Watching and Writing Scripts

Posted on April 5, 2016 by Tom Liberman

Probably a few of you know that I write novels and even fewer that I’ve written a number of screenplays although I’ve never sold any. I was thinking about the changing nature of television viewing habits and how that might effect screenwriters.

Many people binge watch televisions shows these days. The industry has recognized this as far a general content goes, they release entire seasons at once and story arcs that cover multiple episodes and seasons are now common.

What I’m considering is the idea that the script itself, the order in which things are presented, the nature of the Three Act Play and the Five Act Play might be twisted to accommodate and better entertain audiences in this new era.

For example, why do we have a cliffhanger at the end of an episode? If the audience can and does immediately watch the next episode, is it necessary or even appropriate? The entire season and even the entire show run is really just one long episode. On the other hand, cliffhangers keep the audience coming back for more and if we don’t have them at the end of individual episodes and seasons but in the middle of an episode, would that cause people to not start the next episode or season?

Should there even be episodes in the traditional format? Should the season just be released as one long video with chapters like a book? Some chapters might be an hour, others might be fifteen minutes.

Perhaps the chapters could come with delineated break points with links to a website where people could post their thoughts, vote in polls, and otherwise communicate with others who have watched up until that break. If the audience doesn’t know when the episode climax is coming, because the break could be at any point, does this add to their experience?

There would be drawbacks as well. If an episode is of varying length it’s not as easy to plan a time to watch it.

Might inter-season specials be released with audience participation in mind. Perhaps you could release an episode and allow voting to determine the ending. Then go back and film said conclusion.

I’m not saying any of my ideas are good, I’m just saying that it’s worth examining.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Chet Hanks and Being Responsible for Someone Else’s Actions

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Tom Liberman

A man is suing Tom and Rita Hanks because their son, Chet, reportedly caused a car accident that injured that man. I’d like to examine the idea that a third party can be held responsible for the actions of another person.

Tom Hanks and his wife are the registered owners of the car Chet was driving. Chet has a history of drug and alcohol abuse. The main thrust of the argument is that by purchasing a car and insurance for Chet, they enabled him to drive. Without their intervention he would not have been able to drive a vehicle and thus would not have been in the accident.

The lawsuit brought to my mind the idea of suing someone for what in legal terms is largely called negligence. Negligence law is quite complex and I could get quite bogged down in minutia. I want to avoid that.

There are many situations most people can agree whether a third party is or is not negligent. I’ll give an example of both.

Your friend comes to you and asks to borrow your firearm (or kitchen knife) so they can shoot (or stab) someone else and you give it to them without question. I think most people would say that you are partially responsible for the ensuing murder.

Your friend borrows your firearm (or kitchen knife) to go practice at the shooting range (or cut vegetables) but then shoots (or stabs) someone else. I think most people would agree you did not behave in a negligent fashion.

At what point am I responsible for someone else’s harmful actions? That’s the question. That’s the legal line of negligence. It’s not an easy question. Each case must be adjudicated on its merits. And yet, I think there is an answer.

The larger, and better, answer is that we are not responsible for another person’s actions. They alone are responsible. If I provide that person with the means to commit a crime (the car in this case), there is no way to say they wouldn’t have acquired those means via another avenue. Chet could have purchased his own vehicle and gotten insurance. He could have stolen a car. He could have driven without insurance.

If a friend comes to me saying they want to murder someone and I immediately loan them my gun, I am not responsible for the ensuing murder. I didn’t do it nor did I encourage or manipulate my friend into doing it. I am certainly guilty of being a horrible person. I never should have loaned them the firearm. I should have tried to talk them out of it. I should have called the police to alert them. I should have called the target and warned them. I’ve failed as a person on many levels but I did not commit murder.

And yet there is a victim. Someone’s life was changed or ended. The family and friends of the murder victim. Maybe the victim survived but is in a vegetative state or crippled. Their life has been fundamentally and irreversibly changed. If it was one of my sisters or friends I would be extraordinarily angry at the negligent third party who gave the murderer the firearm. But would that person be guilty of negligence and owe me money?

I say no. I say you can’t be responsible for another person’s actions unless you intentionally manipulate them into doing something. We must all be responsible for our own actions.

It’s a tough concept to swallow and I understand people will disagree. My final argument is to ask if negligence laws prevent people from criminal activity? If Tom and Rita Hanks are held financially responsible for Chet’s alleged mistakes does that make the world a safer place? If parents around the nation who have children with alcohol or drug dependencies stop getting cars for their dependents will it stop the children from driving? Or will it cause more problems as said children need transport and resort to whatever methods required to get it?

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Tom Liberman

Tales of Corland

Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Jordan Spieth and Professional Autograph Sellers

Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead – Libertarian Movie Review

The Story

Why it Works

Five Freedoms

Wisconsin Prison Bans Dungeons and Dragons

Harambe the Gorilla and Lessons to be Learned

The System isn’t Always Rigged – Libertarian Convention

It’s not the Beard, it’s the Rule – Andrew Jones Graduation

Amazon Book Giveaway Clause

The Gray Horn – Available Now

Government to Regulate e-Cigarettes but Why?

Hunter Osborn and the Penis that Traumatized Everyone

Life Ain’t Fair – Just ask Hikaru Nakamura

Mistakenly Demoted for Political Beliefs – Hefferan v. Paterson

Is it Okay to Root for Nazi?

Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, and the role of Government

Overview

Building the Labs

Role of Government

Conclusions

Binge Watching and Writing Scripts

Chet Hanks and Being Responsible for Someone Else’s Actions