Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Was the Biblical Satan a Libertarian?

Posted on by

Ten Commandments StatueI came across an article about how a group of Satanists want to put up a monument outside the Capitol Grounds in Oklahoma City. The Oklahoma legislature placed a Ten Commandments statue on the grounds in 2012 and now the Satanists want equal representation.

This comes as no surprise to me. It’s only natural that when one religious group gets to build a monument on public grounds that everyone else will want to join in on the party. The article did lead me into an investigation of Satanism as a whole and I was particularly struck by the beliefs of what are called Theistic Satanists.

There are other forms of Satanism but Theistic is the commonly associated ideology.

They believe that Satan is an actual entity to be worshiped. This is somewhat in lines with Christianity where Satan is certainly a real figure although to be loathed rather than loved.

A Theistic Satanist believes strongly in the power of self and the pursuit of knowledge. The biblical story of Satan has him exhorting Adam and Eve to eat of the Fruit of Knowledge so that they can fully understand and pursue their lives rather than live sheltered half-lives in the Garden of Eden. Very Libertarian indeed. They do not know evil and therefore cannot truly understand the nature of their lives.

They also tend to think that Satan encourages self-improvement. That Good and Evil are defined as ideas that benefit or harm mankind. This contrasts with the more biblical view in which Good and Evil are defined by submission or rebellion from God’s will. This also is line with ideals promulgated by Ayn Rand who wants us to do our best in everything and that by achieving we make life better for our society and those around us. They argue devotion to God’s will is meaningless to the true definition of Good or Evil. That defining Good as being submissive to God undermines individuality and a person’s best interests.

The Bible often equates evil that happens to people as being inflicted by Satan and Satanists view these as tests which make them stronger. That overcoming adversity is the fire that makes us strong and these challenges are brought on by Satan.

Many Satanists believe in magic and some in animal sacrifice although I see no particular connection with a Libertarian in either regards.

Of course, I think it’s all nonsense. I’m an Atheist. God is not real nor is Satan. Our lives are what we make them. Tests in life come through the natural course of events. Our parents will die, our friends and family will face illness and misfortune. Adversity is the price of life and not brought on by any outside agency.

As to the monument? I suppose if you allow one religion to mount something you’ve got to allow the rest.

I suppose this is what I get for reading so many news stories.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

When Nostalgia is Stupid

Posted on by

NostalgiaThe Save button vexes me, or at least the icon for the Save button.Save Button

I turned on my computer at work this morning and was once again confronted by the diskette save button that seems ubiquitous on most software. I’m also annoyed by the designation of the C: drive.

Why is the image for the save button a diskette? (no, it’s not a floppy disk, that’s something else, go look it up, I’m too lazy to show you).

There was a good reason the save button was a diskette. The diskette was, for a short period of time, the way we saved files. It could hold up to 1.44 MB of data and every computer in the world had a B: drive which could read from the diskette. Yes, the B: drive. The reason it was the B: drive was because the aforementioned floppy disk was the A: drive. The internal drive eventually came along and was called the C: drive.

You may have noticed that there are no drives for floppy disks or diskettes anymore. That we now save files either on the network, the web, or a removable USB drive. The diskette no longer has a place in the world. There is no A: or B: drive on your computer but there is certainly a strange little icon we use for saving things. I’ve often heard it referenced as “The little TV set button”.

People in this world have a fondness for something called nostalgia. We remember past events with what are called rose-colored glasses. This is something we see every day in the world and it’s not necessarily a good thing.

Wikipedia tells us: The term nostalgia describes a sentimentality for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations.

I’m of the opinion that a over-reliance on nostalgia can be a negative influence on life. When we base our behavior on misconceptions about the past it is bound to make our lives worse.

As an example; there were good things about simpler times in the 19th century but there were also awful things as well. Women had few if any rights. Racism and anti-Semitism were the norms not the exceptions. If we yearn for a simpler time without understanding that we also give away the ability to travel long distances easily, eat oranges outside warm regions, have cold drinks, and many of the other things modern society offers us, we do a disservice to ourselves.

My point in all this? I want to end the Save button icon as a diskette. It makes no sense to the modern users and thus can cause confusion. It’s bad in general. Death to the Diskette!

P.S. Can someone please make the C: drive the A: drive and end that madness?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

No Mistletoe Sales without a Permit – The Madison Root Story

Posted on by

Madison Root and her MistletoeAnother major news story just came down the pipe and I can’t stop myself from writing a blog even though it’s past my bedtime (10:00 p.m.).

Young Madison Root decided to set up shop in a Saturday Market in Portland, Oregon. She was selling her hand-picked mistletoe in the hopes of getting enough money to pay for her braces. She was told to pack her entrepreneurial spirit up and go home, she had no permit.

Judging by the comments I’m reading below the story most people think she was badly wronged. That she should be allowed to sell her wares in a public market. If beggars are allowed to beg why shouldn’t an adorable little eleven year old girl be allowed to sell her lovingly picked mistletoe?

Well, call me Dr. Curmudgeon (I didn’t spend four years in Curmudgeon school to be called Mr. Curmudgeon) but I think the security guards at the market did absolutely the right thing.

When the Girl Scouts setup their racketeering operation (you heard me right) at the local supermarket I’m quite confident they’ve done all the paperwork necessary to be there. The same for the Salvation Army and the Fire Department with their boots. I don’t like it, I don’t want to be disturbed and hit up for money when I’m tired and hungry but I put up with it because I know they’ve followed the rules.

Do we want unlicensed stands at every corner? Do we want anarchy? Do we Madison!? Well, do we?

I hate to be the bad guy (not really) but I don’t want an army of cute girls selling me bracelets, mistletoe, cookies, or anything else. If you need permission to set up shop in a market then go to the trouble of getting permission. Don’t just show up and go whining to the local television station about how unfair is life.

There are reasons we need permits to hawk our wares in markets. Legitimate vendors who go to the trouble of getting permission to sell their goods should not have to deal with some Madison-come lately who steals their business.

Call me what you will in the comments, I can take it!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Stealing Electricity in Georgia

Posted on by

Nissan-Leaf-Fast-ChargeI just read an interesting story about how the owner of a Nissan Leaf plugged his car into an outside outlet of the Middle School where his son was playing in a basketball game. He did not have permission from the school administrators to do so although he had not been denied either. There was no one around and he plugged in.

A police officer spotted the activity and took his information. Eleven days later an officer arrived at his door and arrested him. He was kept in jail overnight and released the next day.

The story didn’t indicate if the police did an investigation and if the school administration wished to press charges. It’s difficult for me to believe this was the case but it is possible. The school might have wanted to set a precedent.

Twenty minutes of electricity is the equivalent of about five cents. There are probably few among us who have not plugged in a device at an airport, a friend’s house, a coffee shop, or any other place where electrical outlets are available. The difference between the incidents is, I think, that the outlets at airports and restaurants are intended to be used by customers. That’s their purpose. The business places them there to be used by patrons. In this case that was not the intended purpose of the outlet.

That being said, I’m not convinced that arresting Mr. Kamooneh was the appropriate course of action. Perhaps a warning was in order. Stealing five cents doesn’t generally rise to level where the police would normally become involved. Stealing is stealing, I agree. I don’t think the officer was out of line to question Kamooneh.

Certainly the resources necessary to pick up Kamooneh, deliver him to prison, house and feed him overnight, and process him cost far more than the theft.

On the other hand I certainly wouldn’t want a neighbor plugging into one of my outside outlets to power their holiday lights.

This is the sort of case where I think everyone would have been a little better off with some common courtesy. Kamooneh should have gone in and asked someone if he could plug-in his car. I’m sure the answer would have been yes. The officer should have told Kamooneh to go get permission and unplug until he had done so.

A little decency, courtesy, and some manners can go a long way in life. I read a lot of stories looking to find fodder for my blog and it seems to me that more often than not if people had just shown a bit of decency and kindness at the first sign of trouble that the ensuing disasters could have easily been avoided.

What do you think? Criminal or not?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Star Trek Replicator – What it Means for Society

Posted on by

ReplicatorI wrote a post yesterday about how I thought unemployment was based upon money rather than there not being jobs to do. The idea being that there is plenty of actual work to be done, it is a matter of being willing to pay people to do that work. That if there were enough money to pay people, the only unemployment would be those who chose not to work.

In the Star Trek universe they have a device called a replicator. This device will fabricate what you want out of base elements. You want something to eat? The replicator provides. You want something off which to eat it? The replicator provides.

Today we are in the early stages of creating a replicator. We call it a 3D printer. This device uses base element to print layer after layer of an object until it is complete. These printers are soon going to be on space missions to print food, much in the same way the replicator worked on Star Trek.

I’m going to take a little leap ahead here. What if the material for these devices was incredibly cheap? What would that mean for society? For employment?

The Star Trek universe does not explore these ideas but I’ve thought about them quite a bit.

One of the arguments we hear against entitlements is that people who do not need to do anything, don’t do anything. If people are given things in life then they don’t understand what it is to work. This is a philosophy espoused to a certain degree by Ayn Rand and I largely agree with the principle of the matter.

If we give people food and shelter they will then be unmotivated to do anything. They will lay about getting fat and eventually they will die. They will be endlessly entertained by their Holodeck wasting their life away. That society will suffer from all these people doing nothing.

Another idea is that if people are freed from the massive effort of providing food and shelter they can use their lives in far more productive ways. They can get an education, learn an art, use their minds and their time to improve society.

So if the replicator is coming, if cheap food, cheap energy, and cheap shelter are soon to be available to all (and I think they will be), and if robotics will free us from mundane tasks; what is the looming future? Will we become a society of do nothing people or a society of great achievers?

I think it all depends on the individual. It all depends on how we choose to educate and motivate people. People who are motivated to achieve will do so at levels we cannot imagine. Productivity has skyrocketed and will continue to do so as automation increasingly enters our life. People who decide to lay around doing nothing will be allowed to do so because of amazing technology created by the achievers.

The most important thing to understand is the true meaning of life.

Happiness is derived from relationships with friends and family and achievement. Happiness is not derived from sitting around doing nothing all day. That only makes us feel miserable in the end. We are happy when we accomplish something, when we overcome a difficulty, when we achieve.

The joy in my life comes from teaching a good class, helping create a good website, helping a company improve their Search Engine results, finishing a session at the gym, running a good Dungeons and Dragons game for my friends.

Let us use Candy Crush as an example. This game taps into the human desire to achieve. Games that sell are those that allow us to achieve by overcoming obstacles. They are not too hard and not too easy. They have low-level, moderate level, and high level goals. When we achieve them we are happy.

This is life.

The Automation Age is coming. People will eventually be free from spending their lives finding food and shelter. If we help people understand that the real way to happiness is through achievement this will become a Utopia. Don’t be fooled though, we could also become an indolent society, trapped in holodecks, overweight, uneducated, feeding our base desires, and miserable because of it.

My advice, get out there and achieve!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Amazon Drones, Luddites, and John Maynard Keynes

Posted on by

Amazon DronesThe news story that is catching everyone’s eye this week is from an episodes of 60 Minutes where Amazon owner Jeff Bezos declared that the company is contemplating using drones to deliver packages to customers.

This idea is frightening to a number of people as explained by this article.

The theory is that technology will replace jobs and there will not be enough work to go around. The idea first came to the forefront in the early 19th Century when textile workers began protesting against labor-saving machines like stocking frames, spinning frames, and power looms. This movement eventually became known as the Luddite movement.

A famous economist by the name of John Maynard Keynes promulgated the idea of technological unemployment in the early 1930s. This idea has waxed and waned over the ensuing decades but usually comes to the front when unemployment is high.

Judging by the comments I read; it seems many people today are more than happy to embrace the Luddite argument of technological unemployment. I don’t and I’m going to tell you why.

It’s absolutely true that technology ends jobs, certain kinds of jobs. If tens of thousands of drones are delivering packages and mail all over the United States then we will not need people to drive trucks and deliver goods. What we will need is mechanics, electricians, engineers, and designers to envision, design, build, and maintain the drones.

There was a time when owning a stable was very profitable but the advent of the automobile changed all that. There was a time when being a Chandler (candle maker) was a necessary and important function in society. The same for a blacksmith. Technology ended these jobs but unemployment did not skyrocket. New jobs were created and often better jobs. Skilled jobs that required an education but paid well. Jobs that were interesting and fulfilling.

I think the biggest misconception is that there isn’t going to be any work to be done. Look around. Look at your house, your street, your lawn, your computer network, a nearby bridge, a park, a hiking trail, a power line! Look in any direction and tell me you don’t see work that needs to be done. There is far, far more work to be done than there are people to do it.

Why do we have unemployment? Money. There isn’t enough money to pay people to do the necessary work and things fall into disrepair.

When we free people from delivering packages we make them available to pour concrete, to create art out of lawns, to make beauty where ugliness currently resides.

Will there be a transition as we move into the Automated Age? Absolutely. People who don’t have an education will have an increasingly difficult time finding a job. As automation takes over there will be fewer and fewer unskilled labor positions available.

But the positions that are available will largely be more rewarding and make society a better place. With automated vehicles police officers will focus on crime rather than traffic control. Roadside accidents will vanish, thus reducing the need for emergency vehicles and services. This will lower taxes substantially and reduce the size of government. Car insurance will shrink to nothing. For every awful forecast a Luddite threatens I promise wonders.

I guess I’m saying you can fear the future, fight against it, rail against it, shake your fist in rage or you can revel in the amazing glory that it will bring. The freedom that it will bring. The beauty that it will bring.

A people freed from the mundane and able to create. Robots that make life safer, better, easier, and cheaper.

Not enough work? I don’t think so.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Correlation does not equal Causation – or how the Oarfish predicted an Earthquake

Posted on by

Correlation not equal to CausationI was reading a rather silly article today when I stumbled across a great comment about that story and the immediate and negative response that comment received.

The article cited an instance where a pair of rarely seen oarfish washed up along shore in southern California and how people took this to be a sign of impending disaster. The article cited a number of instances where animals exhibited unusual behavior immediately before some sort of natural disaster.

The comments on the article immediately began. Most of these were anecdotal stories about how pets have behaved strangely immediately before a disaster and how this had saved someone’s life. Among all these comments was a missive that was a fine example of laconic wit and which made me very, very happy.

Correlation does not imply causation.

The point of this phrase is that we as humans often see events that happen sequentially as being related to each other in a cause and effect manner. The reason we see this relationship is because there is often, in fact, such a relationship. When my finger pushes down the letter “p” on the keypad, said letter appears on the screen. This is an example of Cause and Effect.

It is vitally important to understand that Event A which occurs immediately before Event B is not necessarily the cause for Event B. Often the two events are completely unrelated.

The reason this is so important to understand is that if you mistake correlation with causation you are going to spend a great deal of time and effort futilely trying to make your life better. If you do not fully understand what it is that caused the thing you are trying to fix, your ability to resolve the problem is deeply inhibited.

This is one of the main ideas of Critical Thinking. The lack of critical thinking is what drives bad decisions in life. Bad decisions in life lead to less happiness for you and those around you.

We have all been victim of the idea that correlation equates to causation and we’ve all wasted time trying to fix a problem in completely the wrong way. What’s important is trying to assign accurate causation to the events of our lives.

The next time you encounter correlated events take a moment to examine them for causation. Get in the habit. It will make a difference in your life.

Each time you practice your Critical Thinking skills you will get better at doing it. Now, repeat after me: Correlation does not equal Causation.

Now, off you go.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Do You Support Presidential Term Limits?

Posted on by

Term LimitsI read an article just a moment ago that suggested it was time to repeal the 22nd Amendment and remove the two-term limit to the office of the President of the United States. The comments indicated that the vast majority of people not only opposed repealing the amendment but wanted to institute term limits on Congress and the Federal Judiciary.

Besides the 22nd Amendment, which was ratified in 1951, there have never been restrictions in the Constitution of the United States that limit the amount of time a politician or judge can serve.

States have a variety of term limit laws with 36 states having gubernatorial limits while fifteen states limit the amount of time state representatives can serve. Additionally the 22nd Amendment was ratified by 41 states with 2 states rejecting the amendment and a further 5 states not considering it. As a bonus trivia question for my well-educated and thoughtful viewers, why does the total of states not reach 50?

Those who argue for term limits generally suggest that politicians become corrupted upon being repeatedly elected and garner a dangerous amount of power. That they do as they desire without regard to the electorate as would a tyrant.

Those who oppose term limits largely argue that voters are the ultimate factor in how long a president serves and often quote George Washington who said, “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public.”

They also argue that artificial term limits change the way a president governs. That last term office holders have a difficult time building coalitions and accomplishing anything. That last term office holders can effectively do whatever they want without worry of repercussions. That term limited and popular politicians will simply end up with a rotation system where allies are continually elected as proxies. This particular idea reached its highest level of absurdity when Lurleen Wallace was elected governor of Alabama in 1966.

Personally I am for repeal of the 22nd Amendment and the removal of term limits in general. In my opinion term limits are largely designed to correct the problem of elected officials accumulating too much power. That these limits are merely a substitution to our responsibilities as voters in a Representative Republic. That such artificial solutions solve nothing and, in many ways, make the situation worse by giving the illusion of security.

The duty of every voter is to cast their ballot for the most qualified candidate. The candidate that will best serve our nation, our state, and our community. If a politician fails to do so, we have recourse. If we fail to avail ourselves of said recourse then no law can save us.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman

Child Endangerment in Arizona and the Amish

Posted on by

Amish Hershberger Child EndangermentThere are two stories in the news that bring forward difficult questions about what responsibility the state has over children. In one case a couple imprisoned three young girls and in the other parents are refusing medical treatment for their daughter.

In both cases the state stepped into matters and the public reaction is relatively predictable. In the Arizona case almost everyone agrees that the mother and step-father needed to be arrested for keeping the girls locked in the house while in the Amish case the majority seem to think it is the right of the parents to deny potentially life-saving medical care to their daughter.

I’d imagine that almost all of my readers agree with the state interceding in the Arizona case but opinions will be more divided in the Amish case. Both situations involve parents behaving in ways that appear to be at odds with what is in the best interest of the child.

In one situation girls are apparently imprisoned and the other a girl is essentially being allowed to die when the medical community thinks she likely could be saved via chemotherapy.

The Amish case in particular is difficult because Sarah Hershberger might die even with treatment and there is a chance she could live without treatment. There are no guarantees either way.

I suppose Fernando and Sophia Richter might argue that they were protecting the girls from the dangers of the outside world, that they were home-schooling them, that the girls were locked into the house in punishment for particular misdeeds, that as parents they have the right to make these rules and enforce them.

The bigger question, from a Libertarian perspective, becomes: When does the government have the duty to step into a situation and protect children from their parents?

I think we can all agree that parents do no have absolute control over their children. We can also agree that a child does not have absolute control over their own decisions. Sarah doesn’t like chemotherapy but what if she doesn’t like going to bed at 10:00 p.m.? Perhaps a ridiculous comparison but the reality is that we frequently don’t allow children autonomy over their lives.

So, when do parents lose their rights? That’s the question.

What if the Hershberger case the medical community said there was a 99% chance of survival with chemotherapy and a 99% chance of death without? What if the odds were 50/50?

What if Andy Hershberger didn’t believe in antibiotics and Sarah got a cut. It became infected and against doctor’s advice antibiotic were not applied. What is sepsis set in and she died? Would that be endangerment? Should the state step in and apply antibiotics?

I don’t have any answers for you today. I think the courts must make these difficult decisions on a case-by-case basis. These decisions then go into effect. If we don’t like these decisions we can vote out the legislators that appointed the judges and in many cases the judges themselves.

One thing I don’t like is people pretending these are simple decisions. That the line is firmly drawn and that those that disagree are wrong or evil.

These cases involve children who are being abused and potentially being allowed to die unnecessarily. This brings out passionate debate and that’s a good thing. Try not to let your passion become anger and hate.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Instant News and the Issues it Creates

Posted on by

MistakesI just read an update on an ongoing crime story that reminded me that this instant news society we now live in thanks to the internet sometimes carries with it significant issues.

There is such a rush to get a particular news story distributed that the news outlets don’t wait to get a complete story. They immediately publish the story even with only partial information. Even if the main news outlets waited there are a plethora of bloggers like me who want to jump ahead with a story. More than once I’ve reported on news that later turned out to be at least partially inaccurate.

I do my best to immediately update any story which I’ve reported incorrectly but that doesn’t mean the people who read the story also read my correction. This is one price we pay for the luxury of getting immediate information.

People are clearly interested in news. That much is undeniable. People want to read about the story not as soon as it happened by while it is still happening. This being the case we can’t expect media outlets to wait on stories while their rivals go ahead. This, naturally, leads to errors. Stories are reported that are not true. Hoaxers take advantage of the immediacy of news to play games.

Sometimes honest mistakes happen. Sometimes people with agendas lie to reporters and mistakes make their way into the story. People like me unknowingly repeat those inaccuracies. People like you read the information and repeat it to your friends.

Where does that leave us?

It leaves us with a lot of misinformation out there. The amount of misinformation is growing and I don’t see any way to stem the tide. With so much misinformation out there the burden falls to each of us to verify the original the story as best as is possible. We must continue to follow the story and evaluate new information with a critical eye.

The tendency to leap to judgment must be tempered. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with looking at the facts as they are currently understood and making a decision based upon them. What’s important is a willingness to reexamine the situation when new facts arise or old facts prove to be false. This is what is difficult. People do not like to admit mistakes and will defend an original opinion in the face of facts that no longer indicate as much.

In short, we must avoid being defensive about our positions and listen to opposing opinions, evaluate facts with an open mind, be willing to admit errors, and not to gloat when we prove to be right and our opponent wrong.

Anyway, something I was thinking about.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Stadium Collapse or Misleading Headline?

Posted on by

Stadium Collapse BrazilI’m tempted to create a series of posts entitled “Misleading Headlines” as the practice of putting headlines on stories that sensationalize articles to the point where they are misleading is becoming all the more common. I could write a daily post about ridiculous, attention promoting headlines from the online financial adviser Motley Fool.

In this case there was a story about a stadium collapse that caught my eye because of a comment a friend made over lunch the other day.

I’m a football fan and by that I mean a soccer fan. The World Cup is approaching and it is being held in the football mad nation of Brazil. The Brazilians are arguably the most successful national team in the history of soccer and having the World Cup played in their nation is a matter of tremendous local pride.

Back to that lunch. My friend heard that there were pollution problems in Brazil associated with upcoming 2016 Olympics and a bit of research on my part showed that they do have considerable issues in regards to fecal matter in the various waterways that will serve as venues for some sports in the game.

When I read about the “Stadium Collapse” I thought to myself that this was another example of problems within Brazil associated with upcoming sporting events.

The article was updated and in reading it I learned that a construction crane fell. This then caused a chain reaction that tore down part of the roof and a scoreboard in the stadium. While the incident is horrible and two people were killed it’s hardly what I would call a “Stadium Collapse”.

A crane fell on a building and caused some damage. That’s what happened.

Anyway, for those of you who thought, as I did, that a stadium had actually collapses, that’s the real story.

Stay tuned for more misleading headlines!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Offended by a License Plate

Posted on by

Offensive License PlateI just read a story that isn’t that big of a deal except that it happens to have taken place here in my beloved Show Me state of Missouri. A woman was offended by her state issued license plate.

Take a look at the image and see if you can figure it out and then read on.

According to the offended Missourian it reads – Whore Eight Times.

I thought it read Who Rate X?

I’m on record as saying words have power and I will not deny that there are combinations of randomly generated letters and numbers that could and should cause offense. Not many people want a license plate that has truly offensive words on it. The state attempts to avoid this and even refuses to allow relatively innocuous license plates because they might be misconstrued.

In this case the woman could have paid $17 to get a replacement plate but instead, over the principle of the matter, took it to the local news station. The bad publicity eventually got the state to waive the fee and issue a new plate.

The woman claims that people were yelling offensive terms at her when they saw the plate and therefore it was up to the state to replace it. Again, I don’t think this is that big a deal but why should I have to pay for the cost of replacement over something that isn’t blatantly offensive? Someone’s $17 in taxes for the state of Missouri went to cover that replacement.

In addition I’d like to address people who make fun of other people over a license plate. It’s like when you’re a kid and someone makes fun of your name. It’s a state issued license plate. It’s the name you have. When I was ten years old a fellow who happened to have the name Lipschitz provided short-lived amusement. By the time I got to High School it was pretty clear to me and everyone I knew that making fun of a person’s name was juvenile.

So what can we take from all this? People who make fun of random letters on a license plate aren’t worth worrying about. People who tease you because of your name aren’t worth thinking about. They’ve got their own problems. In addition, people who worry about non-offensive things in their life have bigger problems.

Don’t sweat the small stuff.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Are you Still Paying for TV? Why?

Posted on by

Cable TV SubscribersI just read an absolutely fascinating article from the financial world about how the television business is having a dismal year and the future looks bad.

The reason I found the article fascinating is that it completely agrees with everything I’ve been saying about those who make content and those who deliver it to the consumers. Here’s a hint for anyone that wants to be my friend, just tell me I’m amazingly smart and always right!

Massive ego aside, I did want to take a quick look at what the metrics from this article mean about our future consumption of content. What I think is happening is that there is a growing separation between those who create content and the companies that distribute it to us. In the past these two industries were often combined. The networks, studios, publishers, and labels created the content and delivered it to us.

With wireless internet becoming more universally available and with devices that can take advantage of that medium becoming almost ubiquitous we are seeing a trend where people consume content when they want and where the want. That content is no longer tied to a provider.

I’ve been hammering away for years that the major content creators should simply give up on delivering content. They should give their content away for free to the providers and get revenue each time someone consumes content.

Naturally there has been reluctance to accept this business model. The content creators had huge revenue streams through their delivery arms.

What is happening now is that people don’t want to pay for access and subscribers are falling. They want to pay for individual items they purchase. We don’t pay to have access to the grocery store, we pay for the items we buy. As times goes on fewer and fewer people will have dedicated television or internet devices. All media will be delivered electronically to whatever device we are viewing at that moment. We will pay for this by watching advertisements and possibly some monthly fee. Advertisers will pay the content providers a certain amount per view. The content providers will then pass along a share to the content creators.

As it stands, when I see my favorite shows being pulled from Hulu, my favorite sporting events being pulled from ESPN3 I get angry. However, I see a bright future for me and others who enjoy content. No longer will we be tied to a service. I will watch what I want, when I want. Those that provide popular content to the largest audience will get the lion’s share of the revenue.

The content creators will open their vast libraries to Hulu, Netflix, ESPN3, and other providers that will arise in the future.

New content creators will arise, regular people who write their own amazing Sword and Sorcery fantasy novels for example! People will consume what we want at a reasonable price.

There will be more success stories like Felicia Day. Regular people will be able to showcase their talents directly. More content, more creativity, more variety, more goodness!

Children will dance in the streets. Dogs and cats will live in harmony. The Cardinals will win the World Series every year (darn you and your beards; evil Red Sox).

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Privately Funded Mars Mission from Dennis Tito – Not so Private

Posted on by

Inspiration MarsNot that long ago a fellow by the name of Dennis Tito proposed a privately financed mission to send a pair of travelers to Mars and back. I was opposed to the project in principle because I prefer robotic missions to manned missions for a number of reason.

My opposition stopped short of saying he shouldn’t go ahead with the project. I felt that if Tito wanted to spend his own money or raise said money from Crowd Sourcing then it was his to spend. That the publicity of the mission might do some good.

Well, the truth comes out. Tito now admits without NASA technology and government money the mission will not go forward. He tries to shame the government into funding his mission and pretty much tries to shift any blame for the mission not taking place to a reluctance by the government to spend your tax dollars.

Tito claims that without the government money he will go ahead with another plan that will launch in 2021. I’m not holding my breath.

The reason I’m posting this update is for those who were greatly enthusiastic about the original story but will not have followed subsequent events closely. It’s a good lesson for all of us. When we hear grandiose schemes we are naturally excited. The idea of doing great things, of participating in such events, is very attractive. I’m not opposed to dreamers and those who support them.

That being said, I’m a pragmatist at heart. It’s great to dream big but it’s vital to work out the details.

A vast quantity of our tax dollars were wasted when President George W. Bush laid out a scheme for a manned mission to Mars and a Lunar Base that was completely unrealistic. At least in this case it’s Tito’s money, not mine.

It seems to me that one of the major problems that we face in the United States is not lack of dreamers, we have more of those than ever, but lack of practical doers. Everyone offers up amazing plans to fix everything and no one does any of the real work necessary to make them happen, or even takes the time to come up with a realistic plan of action. It’s enough merely to promulgate an idea. If that idea doesn’t come to fruition then it’s easy enough to blame someone else.

The next time you hear some amazing story from Tito, Elon Musk, your neighbor, your representative in Congress, or your favorite talking news head, well, take a few minutes to do some research and find out what it will take to make such a plan become reality.

Just a suggestion.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Taxed by Miles Driven – An Oregon Proposal

Posted on by

Gasoline TaxThere’s an interesting idea being tested in the Beaver state of Oregon and it has the potential to have a negative impact on me. The state has started a pilot program wherein drivers will pay a tax of 1.5 cents per mile driven instead of the 49.5 cents/gallon they currently pay in taxes. This includes the 18.5 cents/gallon federal tax.

The reason for this idea is that cars have become significantly more fuel-efficient in the last twenty years and that has greatly reduced the revenue generated by gasoline taxes. Adjusting for inflation it seems as if the revenue stream has dropped by about 40%. The money from such taxes are supposed to be used to pay for both the upkeep on existing roads and bridges and any new construction.

According to most surveys, the roads and bridges in the United States are in abysmal condition and that is a dangerous situation for anyone who travels on them.

The reason this method of taxation has a negative effect on me is because I own a Prius and get about 45 miles to the gallon. This means I fill up my tank about half as much as someone getting 23 miles to the gallon. Thus I pay about half the Missouri gasoline tax (35.7 cents/gallon) as my fellow Show Me state brethren.

The new system means that I would pay exactly the same amount as someone who drove an equal number of miles in a year.

As a Libertarian I’m often criticized for not wanting any government but that is an over-generalization. I think roads are one of the most important services the government provides and I think it is only equitable that I pay for the use I get from them. Not only my own driving but that of goods that are shipped over them to the stores I frequent.

However, this new per mile method doesn’t take into account the weight of the car which is a hugely important factor in damage to the roads. Lighter cars do far less damage to the roads than do heavier vehicles, particularly trucks. Now, roads are damaged not only by heavy vehicles but also by weathering and even the government is going to be hard pressed to find  a way to tax the weather (although I wouldn’t put it past them).

So, what is an equitable solution? I think Oregon is going in the right direction but it could easily be a multiple of the miles driven by the weight of the car. It seems like a formula would not be difficult to derive.

We all like our roads and benefit from them in many ways. The lifestyle we lead is in no small part based upon the transportation system in the United States. It is in our best interest to maintain it at peak efficiency.

All taxes should be based upon the service that government provides. If my Prius does X amount of damage to the road then I should be taxed X with Y added for the general weathering damage. People who drive more, who use heavier vehicles, should be taxed more than those who drive less or not at all.

This is an important argument in the Libertarian arsenal. We are not against taxes but we think that taxes must be justified by expenses. If the gasoline taxes, if all taxes, are designed to generate exactly the revenue necessary to maintain that particular service I will gladly pay them.

I applaud Oregon’s effort, which faces a number of tests including how to determine the number of miles driven and miles driven by out-of-state visitors. The idea is a move in the right direction, let’s see how the implementation goes.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Carlsen v. Anand – The King is dead, Long Live the King

Posted on by

Carlsen Anand chess matchI’m a chess player so recent events in the world of chess have captured my attention. Perhaps most of the people who read my blog will be less interested. The World Chess Championship between former champion Viswanathan Anand and the  new champion Magnus Carlsen just completed and it was an interesting match for a number of reasons that go beyond the world of chess.

Carlsen is the epitome of the young challenger while Anand filled the role of the aging champion of diminishing skills. Age is a factor in all sports including chess which is physically as well as mentally demanding. It is not easy to keep your focus during the entirety of a six-hour chess match. One moment of exhaustion can lead to a miscalculation and at the level of chess that Anand and Carlsen play this mistake is the difference between victory and defeat.

Going into the match Carlsen was the huge favorite. Not only is he twenty-plus years younger than Anand, 22/43, but he has also been the best chess player in the world for the last few years. His tournament play has him ranked first in the world and his rating is the highest in the history of chess. Anand, as he has grown older, has seen his play slip and is currently ranked 8th in the world.

The final score of the match was 6.5/3.5 with Carlsen winning three of the ten games played and the other seven ending in draws. The format was for a twelve-game match but the player who scores 6.5 achieves an unassailable position and Carlsen managed this after the tenth game, thus ending the match.

What I really love about a match of this nature, and of sport in general, is the competition between equals. Here we have two players, competing directly against one another, and one proves to be better than the other. There are no excuses, no controversies, no blown calls, no charges of cheating, just a pair of competitors doing their best. We can say Carlsen won and Anand lost but the reality is that when we have this sort of competition there are no real losers. The chess world wins, Carlsen ascends to the throne where he will in all likelihood reign for many years, Anand bookends a great career by losing to arguably the two best chess players the world has ever known. Anand lost his first bid at championship to Garry Kasparov who, until Carlsen, had the highest rating in the history of chess.

It’s a great time to be a chess player as well. Computers have opened up new lines of thought and play and there are a bevy of young competitors who will doubtlessly challenge Carlsen in the coming years.

The nature of life is that we have champions, that said victors grow older and make way, reluctantly with fangs bared and claws unsheathed certainly, to the young challengers. This test of fire hardens the new champion. This lesson in life is not just for champions but for each of us. We do our best at everything we try. We play by the rules and sometimes emerge the victor sometimes the defeated.

The only real losers are those who cannot be magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat. Those who equate victory more highly than sportsmanship and simply doing their best. When we do our best; we have won.

Hail to you Viswanathan Anand, the vanquished champion.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Pizza Wars from Jon Stewart

Posted on by

Pizza StyleThere was a recent spat on the Jon Stewart show about what sort of pizza style is the best. Stewart is in the midst of an erudite debate with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel in which the highest levels of oratory and rhetoric are on display in their quest to determine which style of pizza is the best.

I do not suggest that I am at the same level of popularity as Stewart and Emanuel but I do have an opinion on pizza and I suspect that some of my loyal following might as well.

Now, there is much debate between the two great cities about the merits for and against the Deep Dish style for which Chicago is famous and the more traditional New York Style. Being from St. Louis I thought it might be fitting for me to at least introduce St. Louis style into the debate. To discuss the merits of the super-thin crust pizza that is a favorite here in my home town before moving on to the debate between the more well-known Chicago and New York styles.

With that in mind I think I can sum up St. Louis style in a single word. That word being abomination.

Thus unburdened I can now, in good conscience, move on to the more pressing matter of the debate between New York and Chicago.

We have a pizza place here in St. Louis that specializes in deep dish, Chicago Style, pizza. It is called Pi. It’s a fancy pizza to be certain. It’s popular, this is true. People flock to the restaurant and praise the pizza with all their heart.

I can distill my opinion into a few words. Better than St. Louis style … barely.

But for pizza? For real pizza? For tasty pizza? New York style is the only answer.

Now, a short trip down memory lane as I remember some of the best New York style pizza I’ve ever eaten.

In the Loop there was a place called Racanelli’s. It was owned and operated by a Yankees fan with a broad, and I mean thick, New York accent. They had a spinach slice that brought tears to my eyes. I used to ride my bike down to Forest Park, around a time or two, and then on my return trip home stop by to get a slice. I had dreams about those slices. The owner had no problem with St. Louis Cardinals fans but I would suggest not wearing a New York Mets cap in his presence. Sadly, they were bought out and went straight down hill. Sigh.

I flitted hither and yon for a few years trying Joanie’s Pizzeria, Sunflower’s, Dewey’s, and the not bad at all Whole Foods Pizza Pie but I did not find a good slice until wandering into a neighborhood joint, La Pizza, a few years back. It’s a shack, this much is true, but the slice is good.

Now, if Mr. Stewart wanted to invite me out to New York and show me a place or two he thinks might have a better slice, well, I would be willing to stray. I’ll wait by the phone.

Now, my loyal fans. I put the question to you. What’s your favorite slice? New York, Chicago, or the Lou!

[polldaddy poll=7584294]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Trail of Tears Football Banner – Opportunity Knocks

Posted on by

Trail of Tears BannerThere’s an interesting story making the news rounds about a high-school football team that used what is called a break-through banner which taunted their foes using the term Trail of Tears.

The Trail of Tears refers to the events surrounding the 1830 Indian Removal Act in which many Native Americans were forcefully removed from their homes in violation of previous treatise. This law was passed by both the Senate and the House although not with enough votes to override a veto in the House of Representatives. It fell to President Andrew Jackson to sign the law or veto it.

The history books I’ve read on the subject suggest that he was conflicted. The debate on this issue was passionate. In the end, from what I’ve read, Jackson felt that settlers were going to move into the region and getting civil authorities to prosecute these settlers was going to be difficult if impossible. That these settlers and Native Americans would eventually get into conflicts. That the opening of the land and the relocation of the Native Americans was inevitable. In the end he signed the legislation and the supposed voluntary removal led to both Trail of Tears and Second Seminole War.

These two events are stains upon the honor of the United States and it can be argued that the removal act as a whole was a decision that shows the United States in a poor light.

My blog today isn’t about this history, it is not even about the banner, it is about the result of the banner. There are those calling for the resignation of school administrators that allowed the banner to appear. The principal of the school, Tod Humphries, took responsibility for the banner, apologized for the banner, and promised that the entire school would be educated about the Indian Removal Act of 1930.

So, we have two options here. We can vilify Humphries as the person ultimately responsible for the banner or we can both accept his apology and use the moment to educate people about the Trail of Tears and our history.

You can probably guess my position. It appears to me the apology is sincere and I’m willing to take the principal’s word that they will educate students at the school about the Act and its terrible results. I think that Native American leaders should embrace the proposal. They should publicly and vocally accept his apology. Offer to visit the school and speak on the subject. Use the moment as an impetus for good. Shake his hand and vow to make the world a better place.

Can you imagine a world where we embrace those who make mistakes? A world where we move not to blame but to make right? A world where we work with one another even when we disagree?

What do you think should be the result of the banner?

[polldaddy poll=7575738]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

What’s in a Name? The Redskin Controvery

Posted on by

Redskin NicknameThere’s been a lot of talk in recent years about the use of Native American nicknames for sports teams. Many people think some of these names are derogatory in nature and would like to see changes.

The most prominent case is the Washington Redskins who are under moderate pressure to change the team nickname. Meanwhile throughout the country there are many schools and teams that use the word Redskins to reference their mascot. The origin of Redskin is somewhat in dispute but it is generally recognized as a pejorative term. Not everyone feels this way though. The name Redskin is almost always used with pride when in reference to the school mascot or team.

There are certainly any number of Native American names used within the English language with fully 26 states having such names. Professional sports teams include the Chicago Blackhawks named after Sauk leader Black Hawk.

We also see the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Hawks, the Golden State Warriors, and countless colleges and high schools with such monikers. My own high school, University City, changed their nickname from Indians to Lions in response to such pressure. The Stanford Cardinals were once the Stanford Indians.

The question is if teams with such names should change them to be less offensive.

There is a lot of passion on the subject. People who have cheered for their teams for many years certainly do not consider the names to be derogatory or negative. They take great pride in the names. Likewise there will always be those who consider certain words to be negative in meaning; Redskin, in general use, is a far more derogatory term than Chief, Seminole, or Brave.

What’s my opinion?

I’m going to take the middle-ground on this controversy. If a team, writer, college, or person wants to use the term, particular when they use it in a positive way, then they absolutely can do so. Likewise, if the owner or college or whatever decides to change the name because they feel it is a net negative then they can do that as well. It’s up to them and it’s their decision to make, not mine.

If Dan Snyder and the Washington Redskin’s organization says they won’t change the name then I support that decision. If the Neshaminy high school Redskin’s editorial staff chooses not to allow the use of the word then that’s their business. Students that feel differently can get on the editorial staff next year and reverse the ban.

There is no doubt that words carry power and I’ve written on that subject a number of times. If I say something offensive then I might suffer consequences but it’s my decision to say it, not yours.

Go Rams! Let’s Go Blues! Cardinals! M-I-Z ….

Tom Liberman

Increased Fees for Solar Panel Homes in Arizona

Posted on by

Rooftop Solar PanelsAs alternative energy sources like solar become more affordable it is only natural that people will want to use them as a way to both save money and be environmentally friendly. This is particularly true for solar power in western regions like the Grand Canyon state of Arizona that see a large amount of sunshine over the course of the year. This presents a problem to utility companies who derive their revenue from the monthly fee that customers pay to get their electrical services.

Customers who install rooftop solar panels reduce the amount of their monthly fee by a large amount both in limiting the amount of electricity they use but also in selling power during sunshine hours, when they are using nothing from the power plants, while others are at peak demand. They only use power when there is no sunshine and then at a reduced rate.

The reason this is a problem for utility companies is because the fees they charge for their electricity include upkeep on their vast distribution network. This includes the installation of power lines and poles as well as the constant upkeep on those items. Those who use solar panels are both receiving and sending electricity through this infrastructure.

In Arizona there was a proposal by the utility companies to charge anyone who put solar panels on their roof up to $100 a month in excess of their normal bill. The rational being that solar producers reduce their monthly rates by about $100. This fee would cover the difference so that solar panel owners would pay their share of the upkeep and maintenance of the infrastructure. The real reason for the massive fee is, of course, to discourage people from purchasing solar panels and keep them dependent on the power companies.

The power companies spent $4 million on a campaign to convince people the fee was justified. The argument being that if there was no fee that the companies would have to charge more in general to cover the revenue gap. The regulatory committee decided on a $5 a month surcharge to anyone with solar panels.

In my opinion the utility companies are acting disingenuously. The reality is that solar power is becoming increasingly economically affordable without any subsidies. As this happens more and more people will install such panels. Batteries are becoming more sophisticated so that such people will be able to store energy accumulated during the day and rely even less on utility companies.

Those who get solar panels and reduce their costs should not be punished for such a move. Power companies that try to disrupt the future of solar energy are fighting a losing battle. They must recognize this coming trend and adjust their business model rather than trying to regulate competition out of business. One suggestion in the comments that made sense to me was to break the bill into sections for actual electricity use and infrastructure. Everyone would pay the infrastructure portion of the bill equally but payment for use would be based on … use.

This attempt to disrupt natural capitalistic processes via regulations stands against everything for which a libertarian stands. Let the market dictate. If solar becomes viable then it will produce its own economic winners in an organic fashion. If it is not viable, then it will not.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne