Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Anti-GMO Crazies Succumb to Anti-Vaxx Madness

Posted on by

conspiracy_nutsI have a number of friends on Facebook who are all-aboard the anti-GMO movement despite my best efforts to dissuade them. I spoke about the safety of Genetically Modified Organisms here but that’s not what I want to talk about today.

What I’ve noticed in the last few months is an interesting transition in the tenor of posts from anti-GMO Facebook sites. At first they were filled with ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims about various GMO dangers with links to studies that had no scientific basis. As time passed I noticed another other group latching on to the anti-GMO movement and posting comments. The anti-Vaxxers.

Then I began to see a trickle of posts from the anti-GMO sites that were actually about vaccinations. They followed pretty much the same script as the original anti-GMO posts. Lots of misinformation, an almost absolute vacancy of facts, and much fear-mongering.

As time has gone on the anti-Vaxx group seems to have completely taken over the anti-GMO Facebook sites. Virtually every post I see from a source such as GMO Dangers is not about GMOs at all but about vaccinations. The comments are filled with people railing against vaccinations and those who oppose GMOs are almost completely absent except for those who belong to both groups.

I would say that every anti-GMO person with whom I’m personally acquainted is a strong believer in vaccinations. They despise the anti-vaccination group and believe, rightly, they are proposing a dangerous policies.

I can only assume my friends who once supported the various anti-GMO posts have fled to higher ground. I am curious, though. Are you an anti-GMO person? If so what do you think about anti-vaccination people taking over your cause? Does it make you question your opinion that such as they are metaphorically with you?

What does it say about the conspiracy mindset?

Let me know in the comments, I’m interested in your opinions!

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

Kasparov and the Problem with Moral Codes

Posted on by

Kasparov-banned-fideThere’s an interesting story in the world of chess that I think illustrates one of the problems with so called Ethical Codes.

Former chess champion Gary Kasparov has been forbidden to hold office in the chess federation, FIDE, for two years because of an accusation of attempted bribery during his recent campaign to become president of that organization.

Ethical Codes are created by organizations as a way to prevent behavior that they considered unethical. If an employee violates this code they are subject to punishment up to and including termination. The modern use of such codes in business is often related to justifying punishment rather than preventing unwanted behavior.

I’m not completely opposed to such codes. I think an organization has every right to create their own rules. I recently wrote about how the U.S. Soccer Federation should prevent Hope Solo from participating in the Olympics because of her troubling off-field activities. Likewise I spoke about the NFL’s sanctioning of Ray Rice for similar transgressions.

The problem in this case is that the FIDE is absolutely and totally corrupt. It is run by a man who routinely uses bribery to implement policy. To have such an organization stipulate ethical violations against a member for doing exactly what they themselves do is a rather tough pill to swallow.

When a code is applied unfairly it’s not really a code at all. It’s just a cudgel used to keep those who disagree in line and punish enemies.

What is to be done?

I’m opposed to removing such codes because I think any organization has the right to create their own rules. I’m also against a higher agency coming in and dictating how an organization applies it codes because this just means corruption moves up to that higher agency. The problem is not solved at all, despite the illusion of improvement, and in many ways made worse because the higher the agency the more people it has control over.

The only real solution is for members of the organization to see through the facade and elect better representatives or form their own group.

It’s not easy to convince those currently in power that misapplication of rules in a way that benefits them is, in the long run, bad for them. It is. If one person can misapply rules to gain advantages then soon enough someone will come to power who is not your ally and will use the same methods against you. It is far better to apply rules fairly and evenly and allow the best to succeed within the confines of your structure.

While that philosophy is comforting, the pragmatist in me realizes that reality is not. Kasparov is banned. The FIDE is corrupt. No solution appears imminent. Those in power and those who support them seem perfectly happy with the arrangement as it is. They have enormous bankrolls and there is no shortage of people willing to do anything for money. The Libertarian ideal is but a dream.

What can I do about it? I’ll write another book and hope the leaders at FIDE read it, understand it, and apply the principles of freedom to their organization. What else can I do?

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

Why are Strippers a Problem at Louisville?

Posted on by

louisville-strippersThere’s an ongoing story involving strippers and prostitution at the University of Louisville in which the evidence strongly suggests an assistant coach paid for women to dance naked and perform sex acts with basketball recruits and players.

At this point no criminal charges in the incidents have been filed and there is some doubt as if a crime has been committed. The head coach of the basketball team, Rick Pitino, has emphatically declared that he knew nothing of the parties at Billy Minardi Hall.

There are a couple of issues on point here for me.

The first question I ask is why anyone is in any trouble at all? From reading the various accounts of the incidents the recruits, the assistant coach who paid for the parties, and the women were all adults and engaged in the various activities without coercion.

My second issue is Pitino’s denial of any knowledge of the events. I argue that if someone wants to pay consenting adults to dance and potentially have sex with them then that’s a private contract between those individuals. However, I despise the “I didn’t know about it” argument. If you didn’t know about it, you should have known about it. You’re the head coach! What goes on during your watch is ultimately your responsibility.

If it were not for the NCAA I don’t think there would be any problem with the events as they apparently occurred. Certainly the NCAA can have whatever rules they want for their organization as long as they don’t run afoul of the Constitution. Therein lies my third issue, my favorite whipping boy, the NCAA.

Why do they have these rules?

The argument is that without restrictions preventing schools from offering favors to recruits, the richest schools would offer the biggest rewards. I’ve got news for you, NCAA. They already do. They build enormous stadiums, weight rooms, luxurious dormitories, lush cafeterias, fancy game-day uniforms, and other benefits in order to lure the athletes. Television exposure is a powerful incentive to a student who hopes to go onto a professional career and even just a kid who wants to be seen. Rules to prevent a coach from buying a bagel with spread on it are trying to close the barn door when there isn’t even a barn door to close. It’s wide open.

So a school has sex parties to entice recruits. I have no more problem with that than I do with a school housing them in special dormitories. It’s a salacious story and people like that, but let’s look at the root of the issue. The schools are making money from the games and want the best players. The players are workers, like it or not, and just like you and me, should be compensated for their work. They get a scholarship, true, but they have a right to any compensation their employer wants to give them. Is your salary capped by an organization? Do you make exactly the same as all the other workers?

Unfair playing field for wealthy schools? Life is an unfair playing field, get over it.

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

He Kept Us Safe – Cry of the Tyrant

Posted on by

he-kept-us-safePresidential candidate Donald Trump stated the factual information that President George W. Bush was the sitting president when the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and other locations occurred. This has spawned hue and cry from Republican politicians including Bush’s brother, John Ellis (JEB) Bush who tweeted the image I’ve included in this post.

The gist of the argument is simple enough, He kept us safe.

The problems I have with this statement are many and deeply felt. I’ll start with a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin that I think well sums up my opinion.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

My first shuddering reaction to that tweet is the simple fact that Jeb Bush apparently thinks the primary job of the President of the United States is to keep us safe. The idea sounds reasonable but it’s not. If your main job is to keep anything safe, the best way to do this is to take away that thing’s freedom. Keep it locked behind impenetrable walls and away from the dangers of the world. One, of course, should not be foolish and do dangerous things for no reason but safety and freedom are to a large degree antitheses of one another. That Jeb Bush thinks of this first in defending his brother is troublesome.

My next reaction is the simple fact that it cannot be established as an accurate assessment. There is no way to know if the lives lost in President Bush’s administration were equal to, less than, or more than would have been lost under another leader. Were lives lost? Certainly. Many soldiers died and many more were horribly maimed in wars that, if anything, made us less safe, emboldened our enemies and created new foes.

The third thing I think about is that it’s just more of the same fear-mongering that our established politicians use to ensure our votes. Vote for me or you’re in danger! Enemies everywhere! I’ll keep you safe, just give me more of your freedom, that’s all I ask! No thanks, I’ll brave freedom, danger and all.

Finally I think of the Tyrant. Such as they come to power by binding us with fear and we willingly, nay eagerly, give them our freedom. Fear is their stick and the promise of safety their carrot.

When I think about the United States and what has happened to us, it makes me wonder if we ought to think about changing the final line of the Star-Spangled Banner.

What do you think, Jeb?

O’er the land of the dependent, and the home of the fearful?

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

It’s Difficult to be Gracious in Defeat when it’s the Cubs

Posted on by

cardinals-cubs-rivalryIt’s rarely easy to be a passionate sports fan. Your team will lose, no matter how successful they are, far more often than they will emerge victorious. My beloved St. Louis Cardinals have not won the World Series since 2006 despite making the playoffs five times in the ensuing nine years. That’s five years of losing the last game of the season and being eliminated from the playoffs.

This year we lost to our long downtrodden rival the Chicago Cubs. Circumstances were not in our favor this year as the Cubs were playing arguably the best baseball in the league near the end of the season while injuries slowed down my Redbirds. Hopes were raised briefly by a Game 1 win but the Cubs went on to defeat us in the next three hard-fought but losing efforts.

There is that moment when the final out is made and disappointment can bubble into rage at the victors and I cannot imagine anyone who has not felt as much over the years.

That being said I think it is becoming more important than ever to be gracious in defeat because as our political climate becomes more infantile in its paroxysm of fear and hate; sports fans, players, coaches, management, and ownership groups are becoming better and truer role-models for how to act in life.

Does not a Cubs fan love baseball as do I? Does not a Cubs fan understand defeat and disappointment and perhaps far better than I? Does a Cubs fan not revel in the joy of victory as do I? Are we not but twins caste to different islands by the circumstance of our birth? Do we not have far more in common than in differences?

By nodding my head and putting out my hand in congratulations to their hard-earned and deserved victory do I not make the world a better place? Do I not set an example for my fellow Cardinals fans and also those who bleed Cubbie blue?

It hurts, that I do not deny. I steel my jaw knowing that next season awaits and the Cardinals shall soon fly again.

Well done Cubbies but we’ll get you next year, just you wait and see.

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

The ADE 651 Fraudulent Bomb Detector

Posted on by

ade-651-bomb-detectorThere’s a story that’s been around for years but if you live in the United States of America, like me, you’ve probably never heard it. It’s about a piece of equipment called the ADE 651 which Iraqi police and security forces spent about $80 million dollars purchasing. It’s design purpose is to detect bombs from a distance.

It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It’s never worked for anyone who tested it.

The FBI called its predecessor a fraud in 1999 and the U.S. Army declared it useless in 2009. Yet your tax dollars were still spent on it. The story made big news in England where the manufacturer was sentenced to ten years in prison. The owner paid Iraqis, and other, government officials bribes in order to purchase millions of dollars worth of the useless bomb detectors.

Fraud is a crime to begin with but when you give security forces in a bomb strewn country a device to detect explosives that doesn’t work, it means security forces wave their useless bomb detectors instead of searching for bombs. The result is predictable and vile.

I don’t put all the blame on the manufacturer of this useless thing. Iraqi government officials were bribed and put their own people in danger. Devising tests for such a device is, obviously, ridiculously easy. The fact that the thing didn’t work was not difficult to figure out and yet here we are tens of millions of our tax dollars later. Here we are who knows how many lives lost or ruined later. Here we are.

While such devices aren’t sold in the United States the concept is used all the time. Phony cancer cures, psychic readings, and any other number of scams are aimed at vulnerable and frightened people.

Is there an unethical depth to which someone, somewhere will not sink? It seems not.

What bothers me the most about this story is that this is the first I’ve heard about it. I follow the news pretty closely looking for stories to write about. James Randi exposed it back in 2008, there were apparently a few stories about it in U.S. media but why wasn’t this big news? You tell me.

Tom Liberman

Free Association vs Free Assocation

Posted on by

free-association-free-associationI just became aware the Supreme Court recently decided an absolutely fascinating case, Christian Fellowship v. Leo P. Martinez et al.

The decision is a rather long read and I admit freely that I haven’t perused the entire thing as of yet. Also, my complete lack of legal training makes those documents tough for me anyway. I’ll try to summarize but anyone who has a better handle on the situation please feel free to clarify.

The University of California Hastings College of Law has a rule about student organizations it is willing to recognize. Such organizations are granted certain privileges at the college including meeting rooms. The rule is that they must accept anyone who applies, even someone whose stated views seem to be at odds with the group.

The group in question is the Christian Fellowship at Hastings. They forbid anyone who engages in premarital sex, among other things, from becoming a member. This was a clear violation of Hastings rule that to be recognized they must be willing to accept anyone who wants to join. The case went to the Supreme Court.

What I find insanely interesting about the case is that it is largely an argument about Free Association. The college wants to associate only with student groups who allow anyone to join and say they can exclude those who don’t. The Fellowship wants to associate with only people they want and feel free to exclude those who do meet their standards!

Both sides are essentially arguing the same point!

If you say the college must allow everyone regardless of their rules, it seems to me you can only say the Fellowship must allow everyone as well! If the college can exclude based on a rule then shouldn’t the Fellowship likewise be able to exclude?

Kaboom!

What do you do with that one?

As I said, the ruling goes on for pages and pages but talk about a tough one!

There are times I’m glad I’m not a Supreme Court Justice!

I honestly don’t know what to think. Talk about the Kobayashi Maru!

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

Truth or Compassion?

Posted on by

truth-or-liesThis weekend my step-mother missed a step resulting in a badly and gruesomely broken leg. As she lay there writhing in agony she said, “I think I my have broken my leg”.

I responded, “No, you broke your leg.”

Not exactly Mr. Compassion and Kindness. The incident is a window into me to some degree but it brought to my mind a question. Is it better to be brutally honest or skirt around honesty with compassion? I recall another incident while visiting the great state of Alaska where my young niece, perhaps ten or eleven at the time, and me were staying in a cabin and she asked me what would happen if a bear came in the windows. The Denali guides had given us a lesson on what to do if a bear attacks earlier in the day. I responded, “It would kill us.”

Tess was not particularly happy with my response, as might be expected.

Are we better off hearing the awful truth at all times or is it better to soften the blow occasionally?

In the case of my step-mother it was quite clear her leg was broken, she knew it as well as did I. One couldn’t come to any other conclusion. It was going to require an ambulance, a stay in the hospital, and likely surgery. There was nothing to do about it so perhaps I could have said something a little softer, perhaps, “It does look that way but you never know”. Would that have been a better answer at the time? I think it’s the answer a lot of people who actually have a heart might give, but my black and little used blood pumping organ doesn’t seem capable of such.

Likewise with my niece I could have easily said something like, “I’ll protect you.” It would have been true to some degree as I would have tried to protect her but the reality makes almost no difference as a bear was not going to break into the cabin in any case. Giving a softer answer would have reassured her and probably allowed her a more restful evening.

I’m not really asking if my answers were wrong or right in both cases but examining a more philosophic question. When the truth is unhelpful and won’t change anything is it better to lie a little bit?

I seem to find it almost impossible to lie in situations like that. I’m sure it has to do with my social awkwardness and likely autistic spectrum nature but it makes me wonder if I might have more friends if I was a little less direct, a bit less literal.

Oh well, as Popeye was want to say, “I ams what I ams.”

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

Farmers’ Market as Example of Anarchy

Posted on by

farmers marketI recently got into a somewhat cantankerous although not particularly angry or heated debate at my Libertarian website about why I was a Libertarian rather than an Anarchist. One of those who disagreed with me brought up the example of a Farmers’ Market as a working anarchy.

I thought it was an excellent example of exactly what happens in a anarchic system. I’m fairly certain I will get more disagreement from my anarchy promoting friends. Let me explain my position and you can tell me what you think.

I live in the suburbs of a fairly large metropolis, St. Louis, and I’ve seen any number of Farmers’ Markets spring up around me. There was originally one in my home community of University City and also a fairly large one in a downtown neighborhood called Soulard. Since then I’ve seen others pop up in other suburbs nearby. Each time I’ve witnessed the exact same transition from small farmers cooperative into undercover, secret major produce outlet market.

What happens is a group of local farmers get together to start a market in a metropolitan area to get their produce directly to their consumers. It immediately becomes popular with the locals of that community. Major suppliers take note and begin to buy up the booth space with disguise names; because of their deeper pockets they are able to outbid the local farmers. Soon all the local farmers are driven from the market leaving only the major produce players.

Let’s contrast this with the places I’ve seen small farmers have the most success. At my local chain grocery store! The small farmer sells to the major chain that puts the local, seasonal, produce in a bin up front and resells it for a profit, but still at a lower rate than their non-local produce. Everyone wins. The small farmer has an excellent and reliable outlet for their seasonal produce, the chain makes a nice profit, and the customers get produce at a reasonable price without having to drive a long distance.

This is exactly why I’m not an Anarchist. Anarchy cannot sustain itself, at least at this time. What happens to virtually all anarchistic situations is they attract people who take over the system to their own benefit. In a Farmers’ Market this inevitably is the major produce suppliers. In a political “market” this is the despot.

What works is a combination of limited government working with small but largely free people. Libertarianism!

To me the choice is not between government and no government but between reasonable government and dictatorial insanity. There is no stable anarchy and the Farmers’ Market seems to be evidence to that point, not against 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

What to do with a Fraud like Shemitah?

Posted on by
shemitah-idiocy

I belong to a Libertarian website where a healthy gathering of free thinkers get to express their thoughts. Recently a fellow named Jeff Berwick has been writing any number of blogs about a thing called Shemitah.

The posts are largely a series of dire predictions about economic collapse and World War III as they relate to a little observed Jewish holiday.

Those that promulgate the stories are scam artists hoping to scare gullible people and extract money from them. I’m not going to waste time talking about how stupid are the scams or how vile are those using fear to steal from people. What I want to talk about is the need for my Libertarian website to continue to allow them to be posted.

The posts are filled with half-truths, exaggerations, and outright lies. Yet the powers that be allow the author to continue to post despite a criminal track record. Why? Because we’re Libertarians. We’re Anarchists. We’re Free Thinkers.

There must be room in such a group for such sleazy scam artists. There must be room for vile racists. There must be room for even those who promote a large and powerful central authority. We embrace opposition, we don’t quash it. It is not the nature of free thinkers to refuse ideas, even the incredibly stupid and intentionally misleading.

It is my decision on whether or not to believe the nonsense posted by Berwick. I’m free to post comments on his idiotic blogs, and rest assured, I do. But I’m not free to order his lunacy removed from the site.

I trust my fellow Free Thinkers not to be fooled by his idiocy. In some ways I welcome his moronic posts because it reminds the Anarchists of our group that just because something is stupid doesn’t mean people won’t do it. That’s why I’m a Libertarian, not an Anarchist. Ha, I say. Look at Shemitah and tell me people won’t do stupid and self-destructive things.

I’m for limited government, not no government because of people like Berwick. Idiots who will kill me and take my money even though in the end they will lose. He’s an idiot and morons do stupid things. Unfortunately, sometimes the non-morons are hurt be these actions.

So I smile when I see yet another Shemitah post. Post away, moron. In a group of Free Thinkers you represent no threat at all, just a reminder.

Tom Liberman

Do not take Stelara if …

Posted on by

stelaraI do most of my television watching on the computer using Hulu, ESPN3, and other outlets. Lately I’ve seen a commercial for a drug called Stelara quite frequently. There is something in that commercial that hit me right in my Libertarian breadbasket.

A few years back the federal government regulated advertisement for pharmaceuticals. One of the rules is that any such advertisement must list major side effects and contraindication of the drug in question.

In the rundown of side effects for Stelara, which includes death by the way, we get the following.

Do not take Stelara if you are allergic to Stelara.

What more do you need to know that the entire process is an exercise is silliness? The reason behind the rule about advertising is so people won’t take a drug that harms them. This relies on the idea that people won’t take a drug if they know it has harmful side effects or they won’t take it under certain conditions like after drinking. That idea is utter nonsense. People are idiots. If they are willing to take a drug whose side effect is death, what’s the point of any warning?

People will talk with their doctor and either make an informed or uninformed decision about taking medication. Stupid people will make bad choices more often than smart people, that’s reality. No amount of warning in a commercial is going to prevent stupid people from doing something stupid. Likewise, an intelligent person who cares about his or her health and what he or she put into his or her body is not going to trust a commercial, but will consult with their doctor prior to making such a decision.

It’s a rule designed to make us feel better about helping people when we’re not actually helping them at all. Do you think anyone bent on taking the medication is deterred by the warnings? Of course not.

Do not take Stelara if you are allergic to Stelara? You have to be kidding me.

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

Rep. Kevin McCarthy Tells Truth – Faces Hell’s Fury

Posted on by

benghazi-hearingIf anyone possibly needed a more damning indictment of politics in the United States of America you couldn’t find a better example than the reaction to Representative Kevin McCarthy’s statement that the current Benghazi Probe was about tarnishing the image of Hillary Clinton.

The statement itself is rather remarkable but the reaction from the Republican Party is predictably nauseating.

I’ll sum it up quickly for those who aren’t following the story.

There have been several investigations into what happened when four U.S. citizens were killed during an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya. Clinton was Secretary of State at the time of the attack and there was thought that her inaction during the attacks was ultimately responsible and that her office lied about events leading up to the attacks. All completed investigation largely found no evidence of wrongdoing from Clinton or the administration.

McCarthy made a statement indicating that the current investigation had succeeded in its purpose of damaging the reputation of Clinton.

I would like to say it’s the reaction to that statement that bothers me but I cannot do so with any honesty. The reaction is completely and totally expected.

Republicans are largely calling on McCarthy to apologize for making the statement and reiterating their opinion that the current investigation has nothing to do with tarnishing Clinton’s reputation but is simply aimed at getting to the truth of what happened. Republicans are furious at McCarthy for telling the truth and insisting that he go back to lying. They want him to apologize to the families of those killed in Benghazi because if the investigation is about tarnishing Clinton, it is about politics and spits on the memories of those who died.

What more do you want as proof as to the dysfunctionality of our government? Of the willingness, eagerness, slavering devotion to lie, lie, lie, and lie again?

The investigation is about politics! It does spit on the memories of those who died! Everyone knows this. Everyone. Yet the lie must be maintained.

In our Republican and Democrat led government the truth is to be avoided at all costs. The truth is the enemy. Winning the election is of far greater priority than good governing.

What more evidence do you need that something is horribly amiss?

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

Legally Prevented from Holding a Job – Leonard Fournette

Posted on by

Leonard-FournetteI regularly rail against the NCAA and their exploitation of athletes, er pardon me, student-athletes, for financial gain but today I move up the chain to the NFL which has a rule preventing a fellow named Leonard Fournette from getting a job.

It works like this. The National Football League refuses to allow any player who has used less than three years of college football eligibility to enter the NFL draft or join a team. Technically Fournette could simply play one game of college football, sit out the remainder of that year, two more years, and then be drafted. Many people are urging him to simply sit out the remainder of his college eligibility and then get drafted. It is fairly certain he would be one of the top picks in the draft which comes with it a salary of approximately $15 million over four years.

If he continues to play he doesn’t increase his potential salary, as he is already at the apex, but he does risk reducing the compensation either through poor play or catastrophic injury.

Every other student in the college, including those on various scholarships, can leave at any time for a professional career. There are no restrictions on any of them. None.

There are any number of reasons for the rule as it exists. The NCAA makes huge amounts of money on the athletes, er pardon me, student-athletes and serves as a free farm system for the NFL. The current rule ensures the NCAA that its best players must stay and perform for the price of an education that is a fraction of the salary Fournette would get if he left.

There are also many arguments as to why the rule is “good for the student-athletes”. One reasonable argument suggests that they might be tempted to leave school before they are ready for the NFL and thus not get the financial remuneration they expected. Another argument suggests that they are being “paid” for their services via the scholarship. I’m sure other people can come up with more arguments but I find them all lacking.

The bottom line is simple for this Libertarian. Fournette has a talent. He should be able to sell that to anyone who wants to bid on it at any time. He should be able to leave school today and join an NFL team that wants to pay him. Any restrictions to his freedom is a restriction to my freedom.

I’ll take it even further. I find the entire draft system as used by sports teams to be repugnant. Restricting a person to negotiating with one company because they “drafted” you? Ridiculous.

Further yet? Sure. The rookie compensation formula is clearly illegal. It removes the ability of the player to negotiate fair compensation for their services. The player is simply “slotted” into a particular salary based upon where they were drafted.

There are reasons for the draft and the slotting system. There are reasons for the NFL to restrict players from leaving the NCAA. I hear all those reasons. I acknowledge them. I understand they are helpful in many ways. Without them organizing a professional sports league is difficult. Yet, they are wrong. They should all be abolished. Free market, fair compensation.

Any legal and mentally competent adult, athlete or no, should be able to pursue the career of their choice at the time of their choice.

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

Competitive Gaming is Cool – No Matter what Colin Cowherd Says

Posted on by

colin-cowherdI’m sure a great number of people are not aware that something called Competitive Gaming, or eSports, is becoming a major sporting industry.

In a recent interview an ESPN commentator named Colin Cowherd said some fairly nasty things about people who participate in eSports, and by association those who watch them.

The rise of eSports can be seen on outlets like Twitch and competitive events have prize pools in the tens of millions of dollars. The sport is played on a highly competitive level by incredibly skilled eAthletes.

What I want to talk about today is not necessarily eSports or Cowherd but simply the idea that people who share an interest can get together and enjoy what they love at a level unprecedented in human history. Because people can thus freely associate the ability to monetize their interest through capitalism becomes a reality. This is important.

Why is this so important?

The phenomenon of people of like interests freely associating across all geopolitical boundaries signals the first stages of the end of the nation state. I’m a Libertarian and I have friends who are anarchists although I’m not one myself. We share many ideas and one of them is that people should be able to associate based on their interests, not on the happenstance of their geographic and political positions.

Until recently humans were only able to associate with those in close proximity to their geographic location. With the advent of faster methods of travel people were able to travel further to associate freely although the limits of political borders placed a heavy restraint upon that travel. With the creation of the internet those borders are quickly vanishing.

I love chess and I play games almost every day with people from places like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Latvia, Armenia, Texas, England, and many more. They likely have all sorts of opposed political ideologies. They almost certainly disagree about quite a number of things but they love chess. They gather at various websites to freely associate with others who love the game. Their desire to come together has spawned websites that make money from their association either by advertisements or by membership dues. The chess players willingly pay a price in order to be able to gather with those who enjoy the same thing.

I want you to imagine a world where you can associate with people who enjoy the same things as you. That you are not bound by a nation that herds you into a pen. You are not bound by political ideology and kept from those who love what you love. What would such a world look like?

Would people with political differences be less likely to engage in war with those they associate with on other levels? I think so.

Would the nation state be able to demonize other nations when the citizens of their nation freely associate with those across the border? I don’t think so, not as easily at least.

Can the nation state withstand the onslaught of free association regardless of borders or ideology? I think, I hope, no.

When people are free to do what they love regardless of borders why would they care about arbitrary lines drawn on a map? There are no borders on the internet, would that the world would soon follow. As travel becomes easier and faster we gain the ability to go where we want, when we want, with whom we want.

The end of the nation state? A pipe dream or a fast approaching reality. You tell me.

Oh, and, Colin Cowherd, you’re an idiot. If you don’t like something then don’t do it. Lots of people don’t like football but don’t feel the need to insult you because you do. Take note.

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

He Touched Me First – Trump v. Lowry

Posted on by

Squabbling-kidsThe editor of the prestigious National Review, Rich Lowry, is currently engaged in a nuanced and intellectual debate with the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States, Donald Trump.

I’m reminded of the discourse exhibited by the likes of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams as they discussed their differences during the formation and early years of the United States of America. They, like Lowry and Trump, were engaged in exceptionally important matters. They wrote carefully worded editorials explaining their points of view and we have a historical record to remind us of these titans who created this great country of ours through the force of their will.

Trump and Lowry show the same depth of thought as Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the other Founding Fathers displayed at a time when they were barely removed from the breast of their mothers.

Is anyone else ashamed to be a citizen of this country? These twitter rants smack of arguments I had with my sister on a long road trip when I was five years old, I blush for the United States of America. I blush!

Leading journalists, the men and women who want to lead this country, the editors of influential journals, they are as children. Squabbling elementary school kids hurling insults at each other on the playground.

These are the choices we have? You, the voters, are responsible for this mess more even than the bickering babies who foist their idiocy upon us.

You, the voters, could choose to cast your ballots for reasoning adults who discuss their differences like adults and compromise to find solutions. But no, you prefer the quip, the one-line insult, the impossible idea, the pleasant sounding lie, the red-faced buffoon.

If you like whining, egocentric, hold their breath until they get their way babies in charge of this country, well, don’t be surprised when your nation functions like an unsupervised kindergarten class in a room filled with paint and brushes.

We get what we vote for in this country. Good or bad.

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

There is No Gotcha Question – Just Bad Answers

Posted on by

GotchaIt seems to be a trend among modern politicians to blame journalists for asking “Gotcha” questions. I’ve got news for you politicians. If you don’t know the answer to a question the answer is … I don’t know.

There is no such thing as a “Gotcha Question”. You can have an opinion on the subject. You can know the answer to the question. You can think you know the answer to the question. You can not know the answer to the question. Those are your options.

If, in retrospect, you don’t like the answer you gave to the question, the correct reaction isn’t to blame the question or the questioner, the answer is to own up to your awful answer. At least that’s the choice of someone who believes in personal responsibility. But I guess that leaves out just about every politician. They can’t seem to find a limit to the number of people to blame for their own shortcomings.

Have I said stupid things? You bet.

Have I said wrong things? Absolutely.

The reality is that in the modern political climate people are going to ask you difficult questions and they are going to ask you unfair questions.

The classic example is: How often do you beat your spouse?

The answer is simple enough. Never. There is no such thing as a question that can’t be answered as long as you don’t restrain yourself to the questioners paradigm.

The premise of the Gotcha question is that there is no good answer. A tough political question about an obscure leader of a terrorist group. Your answer is, I don’t know. It’s not an answer that politicians want to give but it has the advantage of being the honest reply.

When it turns out the answer you gave to a question doesn’t meet with public approval, tough. Give a better answer next time or stick by your guns if you gave an honest answer.

Anyone who claims the Gotcha excuse, I have no time for you. Good day, sir.

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

 

Jagr and the Model Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Jagr-extortion-misleading-headlineA news organization called The Complex had their first entry in my Misleading Headline of the week just this past week but they’ve already topped it with a story this week!

Model Tries to Extort $2,000 From Jaromir Jagr With Post-Sex Selfie, Fails Because He DGAF blares the headline.

I’m very old and I had to think a while on what DGAF meant but eventually I figure it out, Don’t Give a Fuck.

The story involves an 18 year czech model who slept with 43 year old hockey player Jaromir Jagr. The story goes on to detail that she utterly failed in her blackmail attempt because Jagr isn’t married and doesn’t have a girlfriend so he doesn’t care. That she, in fact, has a boyfriend and was the one hurt by her attempt to blackmail him.

The problem is that she had nothing to do with the blackmail attempt. Someone else saw the picture and attempted the blackmail.

I’m willing to believe that The Complex just got the story completely wrong and wasn’t really trying to mislead the readers but the reason they got it wrong is because they didn’t bother to do a little research and that’s why they win my award for a second straight week.

The real problem is that their false story is now being picked up all over the place and the girl is being called all sorts of vile names. That’s just wrong and I want it to stop immediately!

I absolutely think that if an attractive 18 year old girl wants to sleep with a 43 year old hockey player, or, say, a 51 year old writer, more power to her! You go girl!

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

Dog Stoned for Days – Headline and Comments

Posted on by

Dog-Stoned-for-DaysDog-Stoned-Comment
I’m happy to report that my Misleading Headline of the Week and Stupid Comment of the Week come from the same story! That certainly makes my job easier.

Colorado Dog Gets Stoned for Days After Ingesting Marijuana blares the headline from a newcomer to my stupid and misleading headline category, Complex.

The article then goes on to describe symptoms that pretty much exactly match those exhibited by dogs who ingest chocolate.

Most of the comments on the article were fairly spot on in suggesting that chocolate was the cause of the dog’s problems, not the supposed marijuana.

However, an apparent animal lover posted a rant that is fairly difficult to follow because it’s largely incoherent. The gist of it seems to be that the media shouldn’t report incidents of animals being abused by their owners because that encourages people to abuse animals so they can read their stories in the news. Uh … no.

Have a great week!

See you next time with Stupid and Misleading Headlines and Stupid Comment of the Week!

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

Prisoners Charged for Incarceration

Posted on by

Everyone-is-a-prisonerI just became aware of the growing practice in the United States of charging prisoners a fee for each day they stay in prison. The fees are not just for room and board but extend to visitors who are charged for visits. Medical care is billed to the prisoner. Increasingly aggressive bill collection agencies are being used to force prisoners and their families to pay these bills.

Apparently this has been going on for some time now but in recent years the fees have gone up quite a bit. The story describes a man who was attacked in prison and lost an eye. When he sued, the prison hit him with a lawsuit asking for his three year accumulation of fees, $55,000.

There are so many problems with this practice that it simply boggles my brain.

The first thing that immediately comes to mind is that as we continue to make prison a profit center we incentive putting people in prison. It’s clear this is working because you can go to prison in the United States for just about anything these days. Police forces and local governments fund themselves through seizures.  Private prison companies make millions by cutting as many corners as possible and often brutalizing prisoners.

The next thought is if we actually want to release prisoners back into society where they can become productive citizens, having them owe an impossible debt will clearly drive them straight back into crime. It means we don’t really want to release them at all. It’s essentially a Ponzi Scheme. We need more and more prisoners to fund the prison system, eventually, of course, we run out of people to imprison and who is left holding all the debt? The usual suspect, taxpayers. Meanwhile everyone else absconds with all the money. Do they go to jail? Hardly.

Then of course is the simple question of how is a prisoner supposed to earn money to pay for incarceration, while incarcerated? It’s nonsensical.

The only possibility is that the loved ones of the prisoner, who have committed no crime, are going to have to pay. We have now criminalized being related to or friends with a criminal! Take that in for a moment. Think about it.

The larger point here is that we are destroying our nation from the inside. We don’t need terrorists and foreign invaders. Almost 3% of people in this country are under correctional supervision. One in thirty-five*!

CORRECTION: Originally I put 1 in 3 instead of 3%.

At the rate we are going it will soon be more normal to be a criminal than to not be so. It’s already that way for segments of our society.

This must end. In a system that so brutalizes people, often for minor or drug offenses, who is truly the criminal?

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

What’s in a Word – a Constitutional Debate

Posted on by

ConstitutionI’m a member of a Libertarian website where they host regular web based shows and I was watching one of these, led by a man named Sheldon Richman, which discussed a Supreme Court case that caused a great deal of debate among Libertarians when it was adjudicated. I do not wish to discuss the case but an assertion made by Mr. Richman during his show.

It involves the nature of the meaning of words and the nature of interpreting the Constitution of the United States. In this case the debate came about over what is called the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The key phrase being … nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Mr. Richman interpreted the last two words to mean whatever the seller demands. Legal scholars disagree. They have said repeatedly in law that it means the value lost by the current owner of what was taken.

In this blog I do not even mean to debate the meaning of those two words. Where I absolutely disagree with Mr. Richman is his assertion that we must use a textual, or possibly even strict constructionist interpretation of that document. That is that we must go by the words they used and not read meaning into them.

He argues that those who wrote the Fifth Amendment could have easily written … without fair market value compensation. That because they did not use those words they didn’t mean that.

Here is where I disagree with Mr. Richman. They could have just as easily used the words … meeting the owner’s set price.

They didn’t. They used the words they used. That is what we have. No more. No less.

I think Mr. Richman’s interpretation is far more fanciful than the currently accepted legal interpretation of those words. What I find maddening is Mr. Richman’s seeming insistence that he wasn’t interpreting. That he was taking the common meaning of the words while the legal precedent was somehow interpreting.

In this case the Taking party and that who is Taken from are clearly going to be in disagreement, otherwise the Taking would never happen. If the Taker had met the price asked there would be no need for Taking. I’m certain Mr. Richman is wrong and I would guess that he is certain I am mistaken.

In any case, both are interpretations. You might favor Mr. Richman’s or you might, like me, prefer the agreed upon legal interpretation. But you cannot pretend that one is an interpretation and one is not.

You must agree that words have no inherent meaning. They are merely sounds or squiggly shapes. We give the squiggles and sound meaning. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. It’s not a question of interpreting or not. We are never not interpreting.

Richman interprets. I interpret. You interpret. We disagree, certainly, but we all interpret.

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