Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Zimbabwe Economic Woes

Posted on by

ZimbabweThere is a lot of chatter about the economic condition of Zimbabwe in the news these days and I think it’s a very interesting situation.

The history of the country is fairly fascinating and plays into those condition. I’m going to go over that quickly before I get onto the pertinent economic issues. Like most African nations prior to the arrival of Europeans it was a tribal state for most of its history. The region was rich in gemstones and a fellow named Cecil Rhodes recognized this and largely created the country. Current day Zimbabwe is a major of diamond exporter and Rhodes, a mining expert, saw that potential. He is also the  founder of the De Beers diamond company.

The country was eventually named Rhodesia in his honor and prospered when Europeans (read whites) immigrated and began both mining and farming in earnest. During what is called the Colonial era these European subdued native (read black) rebellions and forged a self-governing British colony. This colony prospered thanks to both the diamond mines and burgeoning agricultural industry lead by tobacco and cotton. The farming industry once contributed as much as 40% of the country’s exports and was also self-sustaining in the production of maize to feed its own people. However, gemstones were and remain the main economic money-maker in the region.

Eventually the British colony fell under scrutiny for their racial inequalities and sanctions followed. The British themselves, who outlawed slavery long before the United States, were proponents of majority rule rather the status quo of minority rule. The natives eventually waged a war of independence and gained the control of the country in 1979 instituting a relatively equitable system. Whites kept their property and control of the police, civil service, and judiciary while blacks took control of the government. Clashes between enemy tribes then ensued and many blacks were slaughtered by other blacks.

On an economic front there was general despotic rule in which unions were suppressed and socialist government take-over of universities was at least attempted. This mix of socialism with crony capitalism is worth noting. We tend to lump socialists in one camp and capitalists in another but under totalitarian rule the two intermingle quite nicely. A small minority gets rich using monopolistic policies coupled with socialist takeover of industry. A mix of two bad policies leading to … disaster.

The totalitarian regime seized farmland from prosperous white farmers who controlled about 70% of the arable land despite policies designed to encourage blacks to purchase that land. This redistribution failed miserable, as might be predicted. Without experienced farmers, capital outlays, and a long-term strategy the farming community collapses. A drought didn’t help.

Meanwhile the powerful regime grew rich off the gemstone mines virtually enslaving the population. Western horror at the conditions in the mines resulted in sanctions driving the country further in bankruptcy. Hyperinflation like that in Germany after World War I plagued the country and they even created a one trillion note at one point.

Elections remain largely fraudulent. Disease, mainly AIDS, is rampant and life expectancy is currently 39 years, the lowest in the world.

There are some encouraging signs for the country but the despotic regime continues.

What’s the lesson in all this? If you read my blog frequently you know the answer. Let the best succeed. Reward achievement. If the early white settlers had been fair-minded objectivist instead of vicious racists then blacks might have joined in the economic boom times and the wealth of the country naturally distributed to those most capable. If the blacks who came to power had been fair-minded objectivist they would have rewarded those whites who stayed and worked hard it would have resulted in equitable wealth distribution and a prosperous nation.

Instead, racism, greed, and hate won. That’s what those three things will get you. Disaster. Every time.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Raiders Coach Intentionally Lost Super Bowl?

Posted on by

Oakland RaidersThere is an absolutely astonishing story making the rounds in the weeks before this year’s Super Bowl and it is so crazy that I’m not sure what to believe. I’ll give you the details but I think it’s going to be weeks before we can sort this out, if ever.

A former wide receiver for the Raiders, Tim Brown, has accused the coach of taking intentionally damaging actions in the hopes of losing the 2002 Super Bowl. What, what, what? That’s crazy. Intentionally losing the Super Bowl? What possible reason could there be for something like that? It boggles the mind. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As a rational thinker, my first reaction is: That can’t possibly be accurate.

To the evidence!

Super Bowl XXXVII (37, I do wish they’d just quit with the roman numerals already) took place in January of 2003 with the Oakland Raiders facing off against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Tampa Bay’s coach was John Gruden who left those self-same Raiders just a year before to take the job. He had been the Raider’s coach for four season and left in, amazingly enough, a trade with Tampa Bay. The Raider’s got two first-round picks, two second-round picks, and $8 million in cash for their coach!

In any case, the man who replaced Gruden was Bill Callahan and the two teams met in the 2002 Super Bowl only a year after the trade. It is the suggestion of Brown that Callahan despised the Raiders and wanted to lose the game. His main piece of evidence of this is that the team practiced a running attack in the week before the game but on Friday, two days before the game and with no full-speed practices left, Callahan completely changed the game-plan.

This change resulted in the already unstable center of the Raiders, Barret Robbins, freaking out and begging Callahan not to make such a radical change without a single practice to work on the new scheme. It is an absolute fact that Robbins disappeared before the Super Bowl and was only found later in Mexico. Barret had alcohol and drug problems but this does seem to jibe with Brown’s story.

Jerry Rice, yes, the Jerry Rice, confirms that the game-plan was completely changed on the Friday before the game. Certainly in the game the Raiders relied heavily on their top-rated pass offense and barely ran the ball at all, eleven times which includes two passes where quarterback Rich Gannon was chased out of the pocket and forced to run. However, the Buccaneers took an early lead in the game and this might have forced the Raiders into a passing game. Still, if Jerry Rice tells me the entire game-plan was changed on Friday then I’m going to believe him.

Now, another Raider, fullback Zach Crockett remembers that the game-plan only changed after Robbins fled the team and couldn’t be found. It does seem clear that almost everyone agrees the game-plan changed dramatically two days before the game and with no time to practice. This is something that’s hard to fathom. Crockett’s explanation makes no sense to me. If you lost the starting center it’s even crazier to change the plan. The backup is less likely to be able to adjust than the starter.

Brown also claims that Callahan hated the Raiders. He hated the team he coached? Is that possible? There is no evidence so far that I’ve seen as to why Callahan would hate his own team although there is a suggestion that he was loyal to Gruden and wanted his old coach to win. That seems seriously far-fetched and I’ve seen little evidence to support this.

Later in Callahan’s tenure with the Raiders, Charles Woodson had some harsh words for the coach.

Certainly Callahan is not well-liked in Nebraska where he coached for four moderately successful seasons. For those of you unfamiliar with Nebraska football, moderately successful is pretty bad.

Meanwhile Raider’s quarterback Rich Gannon is more circumspect claiming that the game-plan change came not before the game but during the game when the running attack proved ineffective.

Another possibility is that the Raider’s mercurial owner, Al Davis, ordered the game-plan change and forced it on Callahan. No one  has any evidence to this being the case but it does have the ring of truth about it in regards to Davis.

Holy Cow! What’s a fellow to believe?

For the moment I’m going with the idea I stated earlier, that if you’re going to make astounding claims it requires hard evidence. I certainly see some evidence as to what Tim Brown is saying but not enough for me to believe that the coach intentionally sabotaged his own team. That’s just too much. I eagerly await further evidence from the players on the team in question.

I’m going to poll this one. Tell me what you think in the poll and in the comments!

[polldaddy poll=6848316]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

File Sharing and the Illegal Arrest of DotCom – The Saga Continues

Posted on by

DotComI know the world is fascinated with Lance Armstrong and Manti T’eo but today I’m going to post on a subject that I think is far more important to all of us. File Sharing. It’s not a sexy topic outside the geek world in which I reside but give this a read and see what you think.

About one year ago today the FBI asked the country of New Zealand to arrest a fellow named Kim Dotcom and his partners over his ownership of an internet file sharing site called Megaupload. It was a file sharing site where people could place files to be searched by others and downloaded. Some, if not many, of these files were copyrighted material. The movie industry, the recording industry, the publishing industry, and others consider people who purchase their material and then share it with others to be criminals. Because the site had this copyrighted material the FBI became involved most likely at the behest of the powerful music and movie industry.

The arrest itself used illegal warrants and Dotcom was illegally under surveillance; all of which has come out in court. He was subject to torture like tactics in prison, little food and water and deprived sleep. He was initially refused bail.  He is now free on bail and come up with an interesting way to start his company anew and be immune to prosecution. His new site will feature files encrypted so that the site administrator will not have access to the file contents. This means he will have no real knowledge of copyrighted material on his site. The FBI will have to go after those participating in file sharing rather than those simply providing a medium for others to carry on illegal activity. Because there are so many people fire sharing on such a vast scale it is all but impossible for authorities to arrest everyone involved and, if they did, would likely be subject to serious questions about their own families who are likely also sharing files illegally.

I’m an author of eBooks so this is a question that affect me directly. If people share my books without buying them then technically I lose money. But, the real losers, the ones who are pursuing this case, are the industries that profit off the artist’s work. Artists on their own will find a price point for their material that people are willing to pay instead of ridiculously inflated prices foisted on the public by the recording, movie, art, and publishing industries. I sell my books for $2.99. Almost everyone I know thinks that this is a reasonable price for a 300 page novel. If I went through traditional methods and got a publishing house to showcase my novel; the price to you would likely be $19.99. Now, in fairness, I went to agents and tried to get them to try to sell my books to the publishing houses and failed. So, maybe I’m just bitter. But as it stands now, I want nothing to do with the publishing industry. If people want to purchase my books for $2.99 then they will buy them. If my books are good, I will find an audience. If not, oh well.

That’s all beside the point to some degree. Digital media is here to stay and a real way to combat file sharing is for prices of such content to be lowered to a point where people won’t want to steal it. The other method is to put your content on Hulu and Pandora and other places where advertising pays per view. People watch what they want at the minor inconvenience of a few commercials. But, the illegal arrest of Dotcom and the continued prosecution of his case is nonsense. I have no doubt the movie, music, and publishing industries will try to stop his latest endeavor but I hope at some point they realize it’s hopeless.

File Sharing means that artists like myself can create and sell their work without an industry. That means you, the public, will have access to more material, better material, and at a better price. Sure, there are lots of horrible self-published books out there, and you might think mine are among them; but there is also amazing books, art, music, video, and other media out and available that would never have seen the light of day without file sharing and the internet.

Dotcom, you go! This eBook author applauds your efforts and prices his product so that even if someone does illegally download my books, they might enjoy them enough to go back and plunk down the $2.99 for legal copies.

I’d like to hear from other independent authors, artists, musicians, and the like to see what they think about this subject,

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Lance Armstrong – Hero or Villain?

Posted on by

Lance ArmstrongI’ve spoken about Performance Enhancing Drugs in a number of other posts but with Lance Armstrong apparently admitting to his own use of PEDs in an upcoming (or already passed depending on when you read this) interview, I thought I’d revisit the subject. The main focus of the post will be an assessment of his character, hero or villain.

I maintain now, and have said for years, that virtually all athletes are using or have used PEDs. The testing is, and has been, far behind the sophisticated masking techniques available to athletes in an industry that generates billions of dollars for players, coaches, owners, vendors, and countless others. The cheating likely extends down to grade-school level where students want to gain an unfair competitive advantage over their peers.

But, if everyone is cheating then does anyone have an unfair advantage? My answer is no, they don’t. I’m not going to take on the debate if all PEDs should be made legal or not. Today I want to talk about how divisive a figure Lance Armstrong has become. I’ve been listening to sports radio talk-shows in the morning and reading articles when I come home. There seem to be two vehemently opposed camps.

Armstrong is a cheater, a lair, and a scum-bag. A villain.

Armstrong raised huge amounts of money, gave hope to countless thousands, and his transgressions were minor compared to the good he has done. A hero.

My own opinion is quite simple and, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why anyone else is having trouble coming to the same conclusion.

  • Armstrong survived cancer and continued to play professional sports at the highest level.
  • Armstrong, like everyone else, used PEDs to gain an advantage.
  • Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times.
  • When people accused Armstrong of cheating he lied, he bullied, he attempted to ruin people’s reputation, and he sued for millions of dollars despite the fact that he knew he was using PEDs all along.
  • Armstrong’s foundation raised millions of dollars and helped countless thousands of people.

That’s it. Armstrong did some horrible, reprehensible things for which he should be rightly condemned. Armstrong did some astonishing, wonderful things for which he should be praised.

I think the problem is that those who put their faith in him are either horribly angry at this betrayal or in absolute denial because they don’t want to think they supported someone who could do the bad things that he has done. This is called Cognitive Dissonance and something everyone should know more about.

However, this isn’t a psychology class. Armstrong is a man who did very great things and very awful things. There is no more than that. Those who would absolve him of the evil he’s done because it was for the greater good are delusional. Those who would discount the good he’s done because of the miserable actions he took are just as deluded.

Can’t we look at facts and simply state the truth? He did awful things. He did good things. There is no balancing of one against the other. Both happened. If you choose to forgive him for the awful that’s fine, but don’t pretend it didn’t happen. That he didn’t set out to ruin the lives of those who, rightly, accused him. If you choose to hate him then don’t forget the amazing good he has done for those suffering from the awful scourge of cancer.

That is all. Have a great day!

Tom Liberman

Blindness a Cause for Euthanasia?

Posted on by

EuthanasiaA rather morbid case has played itself out in Belgium recently and it made me think about euthanasia.

The basics of the story is that identical twin brothers decided to commit suicide rather than face a life of blindness. The pair was born deaf and recently suffered degenerative eye disease that would have quickly left them blind had they not killed themselves. Belgium has relatively forward-thinking euthanasia laws that allows people to opt for suicide under certain circumstances. If a person has made their wishes clear and is suffering unbearable pain, according to an attending physician, then it is legal have someone kill you. Belgium is considering extending the law to those suffering dramatic loss of mental faculties as well but that’s not really the point.

I’m a proponent of euthanasia to alleviate end-of-life suffering. I’m of the opinion that people in the last stages of life and suffering horrible pain with no prospects except more pain are more than entitled to kill themselves, it is cruel and vicious to force them to continue to suffer. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. This is simply someone facing a terrible ordeal who decides not to go on. Now, this certainly happens all the time without help. People kill themselves under far less duress. I friend of mine in college suffered horrible injuries because a man, whose life was in a shambles, decided to kill himself by crossing the highway divide. My buddy was coming the other way. So, the idea of someone who is suffering, being allowed to kill themselves without endangering others has an appeal to me.

However, the idea that someone who is suffering from a non-lethal, non-painful illness being sanctioned to kill themselves is somewhat disturbing. I’m fairly certain the government shouldn’t be all that involved in this decision one way or the other. If a person wants to kill themselves then they should be allowed to do it but if someone helps them that’s when things get tricky. The person helping could and has been charged with murder. So, should the government allow people to kill other people who want to die, for moderately good reasons?

Tough questions.

Medical advances are changing the world but the thought of living deaf and blind, Helen Keller excepted, is not a pleasant thought. Even if there was hope that a cure might be forthcoming.

I think that I’m going to have to come down against the Belgium decision at this point. If a person is suffering from terrible pain and wants a physician to aid in their death, that’s more than fine by me. On the other hand, if a person is suffering from emotional trauma, a non-terminal, non-painful disease; then they can and should be allowed to kill themselves. But, they should figure out how to do it themselves. It’s not that hard. Admittedly they might stupidly choose to cross the highway at seventy mph and maim an innocent but I don’t think that’s reason enough to allow doctors to kill anybody that asks.

People get depressed but then overcome that depression. People suffer terrible losses but recover. If you want to kill yourself then go ahead, but don’t ask anyone to do it for you and expect them not to be charged with murder.

It’s a tough one. What does everyone else think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

RG III and the I didn’t know Excuse

Posted on by

RG IIIAs my one or two loyal followers well know; sports is my first love. Long before I was writing Ayn Rand tribute novels dedicated to the ideas of Objectivism and Libertarianism I was living and dying, mostly dying, with the St. Louis Cardinals (football and baseball) and St. Louis Blues sports teams. While things have changed to some degree, I still love sports.

Last night I was doing some research into ACL injuries because of the Robert Griffin III situation with the Washington Redskins. I have an oar in the water on this one. My beloved, yes, I said “my”, read my Cardinals blog on the subject, my beloved St. Louis Rams have the Redskin’s first round pick next year and the year after. So, if RG III is disabled that would seem to indicate this pick might be of more value.

That’s not the subject of my blog today. What I want to talk about is how people use willful ignorance to avoid responsibility. Griffin is just my example.

The evidence that this is the case is a bizarre exchange between the doctor and the head coach of the Redskins. Griffin suffered an injury in an earlier game, came out for a play, and then went back in. Coach Mike Shanahan was asked about the incident and said that the doctored said it was ok for Griffin to return. The doctor, days later, denied even examining Griffin or clearing him saying he was very concerned by his return. Later the doctor hedged saying he didn’t examine Griffin and the quarterback went into the game largely on his own although the doctor gave some sort of a signal to the coach indicating it was ok for Griffin to return.

Here’s what really happened, in my opinion. Griffin partially tore his ACL at that moment. He knew something was wrong and avoided the doctor because that’s what incredibly tough football players do. Then he went back into the game. The coach didn’t want to ask the doctor because he wanted Griffin in the game. The doctor didn’t insist on examining Griffin because he also wanted Griffin in the game. The next few weeks the Redskin willfully pretended that things were ok by not doing thorough examinations. They didn’t want to know because knowing might be bad.

In the grand scheme of things this isn’t a huge deal but it mirrors something I see in today’s society and particular in our supposed leaders. These are the men and women who are supposed to be setting examples for all of us. They are our leaders, the men and women Ayn Rand writes about, the high achievers.

In the George W. Bush administration there was willful ignorance about our soldiers brutally torturing prisoners of war. There was a willful unwillingness to pass along information about the murder of a true Randian hero, Pat Tillman. President Obama didn’t know anything about the situation in Benghazi. Executives at Enron had no idea of the financial manipulations. The housing industry’s meltdown was systemic but no one wanted stand up and make hard decisions. No one wanted responsibility and underlings knew this and thus willfully refused to pass along pertinent information.

Rand writes specifically about this in the early chapters of Atlas Shrugged with Dagny Taggart makes a hard decision about the train on which she is riding. The people who are supposed to make the decision are paralyzed with fear that they will make the wrong decision and do nothing. She steps in and takes charge.

Failing to heed the moral of this story will bring this nation down. Leaders need to lead. They need to make hard decisions and sometimes make incorrect decisions. Voters need to elect those who are willing to make tough decision and be less eager to attack anyone who makes a mistake. Business leaders must lead instead of grub for more money and bail themselves out with golden parachutes.

I don’t want to be overly negative here. All is not lost. There are many leaders out there who are not afraid to make tough decisions and want what’s best their company, their constituents, their soldiers, and their country. Not only must such men and women step forward but we must honor those who do so and stop making excuses for those who don’t, even if they are from the party for which we vote.

Reward courage. Reward loyalty. Reward honesty. Reward honor. Reward kindness. Stop rewarding cowardice, betrayal, hate, and greed. Stop it in your own life wherever you encounter it, in the little things, in our everyday life.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Saving a Parking Spot and Run Over

Posted on by

Parking SpotThere is a fascinating story hitting the news today about an incident in a Wal-Mart parking lot. I’m torn to be honest.

Apparently a seventeen year old girl was physically blocking in a parking spot saving it for her brother’s girlfriend who recently gave birth. A driver, angered by the blocking, then bumped the pedestrian apparently trying to get her to move. The driver has now resigned from her position as a member of the local school board and may face criminal charges

I have to say I’m opposed to anyone standing in a parking space and holding it. I’m also a little confused by the logistic of the situation where a pedestrian could be in a position to hold a parking space. How did the teenager get to the Wal-Mart if not with the driver of the car? Was she just hanging out at the store waiting and got a call to save a spot? How long was she standing there saving it? Ten minutes? Does it matter? Seriously, I’d be pissed if someone was standing in a parking spot and claimed to be holding it.

Now, as to actually bumping someone with your car, that’s out of line. I’d probably end up driving to the next available spot but I’d be hot.

I’d hope the police would just make everyone shake hands and on move on but I guess that’s not the world we live in today.

Someone should tell that girl that there is no saving parking spots. I’m sure many people will defend her as trying to help out her friend but I just don’t see it. There are other options. Grab one of the motorized carts and drive it out to where she parks. Have someone else drive and drop her off at the front door. I just can’t justify saving a parking space at a public parking lot.

On the other hand, I don’t see it as an excuse to bump someone with your car. That’s flat-out dangerous and could have resulted in serious injury. Like I said earlier, I’d like to see an adult step-up somewhere, tell both people they were out of line, make them shake hands, and go on about their business.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Pennsylvania Sues NCAA over Sandusky Fine – Not What you Think

Posted on by

Greed***** EDIT ******

I’m now reading stories that indicate the original information I read was incorrect. The lawsuit does seek to throw-out the penalties claiming that the NCAA overstepped their jurisdiction. There are still parts of the suit seeking to spend the money in Pennsylvania but please take what I wrote below as an honest mistake based on the first stories I read.

If this new information is correct, and I think it is, a hearty of tip of the hat to Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett and a heartfelt apology for my original story! Well done, sir.

****** END EDIT *******

A news story just came to my attention about the fact that the Governor of Pennsylvania is going to sue the NCAA over the punishment meted out in the Jerry Sandusky child molestation situation at Penn State.

I wrote a blog not that long ago suggesting that the NCAA overstepped their authority in punishing Penn State for a criminal rather than athletic case. So, when I read the headline about the lawsuit I was quite interested. I don’t want to go back over the original crime or why I thought the NCAA’s decision was wrong. If you’re interested in that just click the earlier link and you can read my reasoning. What I do want to talk about is the lawsuit, my reaction to the headline, and my thoughts after reading the entire story.

When I read the headline I was excited by the idea that the governor of Pennsylvania, like me, thought the fines and punishments completely unjustified. I assumed that the governor wanted to rectify the situation by returning a criminal case to the court of law, where it belongs, and out of the jurisdiction of the NCAA. Judging by the first fifteen or so comments I read; the majority of people leapt to that same assumption.

Wrong.

Here’s the deal. The NCAA imposed a $60 million fine on the school. This money was earmarked for programs designed to help educate children and prevent child molestation in the future. Well, the lawsuit is about how that money is to be spent. Of course, I’m not surprised. We don’t care that the NCAA overstepped their legal bounds by imposing a fine for a criminal case over which the NCAA should have no jurisdiction. We’re just pissed that we don’t get a bigger hunk of that $60 million. Sigh.

The heart of the case is that the state of Pennsylvania wants all the money spent in the state. The NCAA has a task-force deciding how to spend that money. Let me guess, paying the task-force tons of money, putting them up in hotels, taking bribes from every organization that wants a piece of that $60 million pie, and otherwise acting normally. The NCAA presidents says at least 25% of the money will be spent in Pennsylvania but the governor thinks that’s not enough. Because he wants his own task-force to make those decisions I’m guessing.

It’s all a big fight over the money. Not anything important like ethics or legality.

Greed. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. I’ll be absolutely dismayed when I find out how much of the $60 million went into the pockets of friends of the NCAA task-force members. How much went to pay for expenses. How much went for studies.

I’ll just go curl up in ball now. Call me in the morning.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Avoiding the Fiscal Cliff – Booo!

Posted on by

Fiscal CliffI’m probably the lone-voice who is opposed to stopping the so-called “Fiscal Cliff” of 2013. Yep, I want to go over the fiscal cliff.

For an exhaustive understanding of the ramifications of both stopping and allowing the fiscal cliff to occur I’d highly recommend the Wikipedia article. It’s complex, long, and not easy to process. I’m going to try to summarize why I think going over the fiscal cliff is the better choice but please read the article and come to your own conclusion.

First a quick understanding of what the fiscal cliff entails. Basically, if the US doesn’t extend the debt ceiling then, by law, a series of automatic budget cuts take place along with the end of various tax-relief schemes. These budget cuts and tax-relief abatements are projected to reduce the current level of federal debt by 50% in one year. That is not enough. Even with the automatic cuts we will continue our debt spiral just at a substantially reduced rate. On the other hand, if we avoid the fiscal cliff then we reach 100% of GDP indebtedness in 2021. That means, if there is a resolution to the fiscal cliff, the United States will owe more than the entire GDP of the nation by 2021.

It is argued that we must avoid the fiscal cliff to stop a short-term recession. This is the sort of policy that got us into a debt mess in the first place. It all started when President Reagan came into office during the Stagflation years of the late 1970’s. We started to spend our way out of every potential recession. At that time, when President Carter left office, we were $700 billion in debt. We are now over $15 trillion in debt and, even with the fiscal cliff penalties, will continue to dive more deeply into that state.

The fiscal cliff penalties involve cuts to programs everyone likes. There are cuts to the military, cuts to social programs, cuts to education, cuts to everything. There are more taxes for virtually everyone that currently pays taxes. Either we accept these hardships now or we face nastier ones down the road. One side wants more taxes and the other less spending but neither can stomach both. This nation was founded as a Representative Republic. This form of government works because of compromise. Without an absolute dictator or a super-majority it is impossible to implement dramatic change. That’s intentional. Dramatic, one-sided change is rarely long-term good news for anyone, even those forcing through the legislation.

I’m not suggesting the fiscal cliff ramifications are good news but I’m saying that continuing on our current fiscal path will bring worse consequences down the road. We will eventually face an inability to pay our debt. This will result in all the consequences of going over the fiscal cliff and more. We are simply putting our head in the sand and then patting each other on the back on what a great thing we just did. This is madness.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Deadly Drugs – Already Legal

Posted on by

Prescription MedicationThere are many people out there who oppose the legalization of drugs because of the danger they represent to society. Well, I’ve got news for you. Drugs are largely already legal and lethal. Only the drugs that the drug industry controls are considered legal and alternates that could be dispensed cheaply are still illegal. This article describes how overdose from prescription medications now outnumber overdoses of illegal drugs. Prescription medication pain pills use has increased dramatically in the last fifteen years with it reaching a level four times higher in 2010 than it was in 1999.

At first glance my argument appears to support the continued legal penalties for drugs like heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and others of their ilk. If prescription medication kills so many people then we should think about making Vicodin and others illegal as well. I see the idea but my point is that the violence associated with illegal drugs would largely stop once we ended our prohibitionist laws. Also, many people who become addicted to prescription painkillers eventually turn to illegal drugs because they are far cheaper and readily available. This brings them into contact with hardened criminals. These hardened criminals are actually only a short step away from the doctor that prescribes Vicodin and the pharmacist that dispenses it.

So, prescription drugs are killers and lead to addiction. Illegal drugs lead to violence beyond imagination. What’s the answer?

There will always be people who seek out the chemical pleasure drugs induce; be it legally with alcohol or some other legal medication or illegally with marijuana or other drugs. There will always people in pain who have legitimate need for pain killing drugs to help them get through a medical crisis. We must accept this fact before we can arrive at a conclusion. Drugs will always, and have always, destroyed lives. People are documented as dying from alcohol related illnesses for as long as we have written records.

Once we come to that conclusion, that we cannot stop the self-destructive behavior of a certain percentage of our society, we can start to think about real solutions. How do we minimize such destruction and also minimize the criminal element that causes so much harm as well?

It’s a two-pronged attack. The first step is to legalize all drugs. Heroin is just branded as Vicodin or Oxycontin. It’s really the same family of drug and there isn’t any drug out there that isn’t dispensed legally by prescription. So, why not just make everything legal? It completely destroys the criminal element behind illegal drug production and dispensation which destroys so many lives.

But, that’s not the only attack. Even as a drug legalization advocate I acknowledge the dangers such substances represent. Should anyone be able to purchase heroin at the corner drug-store without a prescription? Would we end up as a nation of drug stupefied zombies? Certain psychoactive drugs are physically extremely destructive. Should we allow these to be sold over the counter to any comer?

I think the solution is one of education and available help. We should dispense with the nonsensical anti-drug arguments and give real information on the harmful effects of these substances. Then the industry of drugs should be taxed, yep I said it, to allow for free clinics for those who want help. Those who don’t want help, those who gleefully destroy their lives, there is nothing we can do for them and there will never be anything to be done.

It’s not a perfect solution. There will still be drug addicts. There will still be those who destroy their own lives and harm those around them because of these addictions. I’m of the opinion that people have to make their own way in life. If we allow people to make decisions like buying some heroin at the local drugstore without a prescription then eventually people will, mostly, make good decisions. We cannot be a nanny-state and a successful country.

We cannot force people into good decisions. We can give people information, give people choices, give people opportunities. When everyone has hope and opportunity I’m of the opinion that society succeeds. That people succeed. Maybe I’m an optimist.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Future Release: The Spear of the Hunt

One Billion Settlement – Toyota Sudden Acceleration

Posted on by

Sudden AccelerationToyota has finalized a settlement on the sudden acceleration issue that was a major news story in 2009.

In the interest of full disclosure I own a 2006 Toyota Prius.

So, Toyota has now paid nearly $50 million in fines for various incidents in addition to this $1 billion settlement. None of these incidents was in any way the fault of Toyota. Sudden unintended acceleration is not possible. I urge each and every one of you to go to your cars, put your left foot on the brake, and push the accelerator to the floor. Your car will not move. The brake mechanism is far more powerful than the acceleration mechanism. Ask any engineer. Most cars will now turn the engine off when both accelerator and brake are depressed at the same time. If your car is one of those that doesn’t turn itself off then do not continue to press the accelerator. You will eventually damage your car although not because you ran into anything.

Here is the NASA report showing Toyota cars tested did not accelerate unintentionally. Here’s a summary of that report.

If you put your foot on the brake your car will eventually stop. That’s it. It will not accelerate. It is not possible. Don’t trust me. Go to you car, go now, try it. There have been numerous tests of car with wide-open throttles being braked. They all stopped. Car and Driver, Edmonds, a state sponsored German commission. All cars stopped.

Here is a link showing how ABC’s story on sudden acceleration was false and faked.

There was a scare in the 1980’s about Audi and sudden acceleration. It was also phony.

The floor mat incident with a Lexus that started this entire witch-hunt was actually real. A dealership installed an all-weather floor mat designed for a different Toyota vehicle and didn’t secure it to the floor. It became stuck under the pedal causing the accelerator to stick. This incident resulted in the deaths of four people although if the driver had put the car in neutral or braked  it would have come to a stop. The dealership was told by a previous driver (who didn’t panic and brought the car to a safe stop) that the accelerator got stuck under the floor mat and they did nothing. They should be fined for installing improper equipment and ignoring a dangerous issue. Not Toyota.

The hysteria aroused by these so-called events is astounding and the repercussions beyond imagination. A billion dollars for doing nothing wrong.

Here is the Wiki article on all the Toyota recalls. It’s interesting reading. Near the bottom they get into the causes of sudden unintended acceleration. People put their foot on the gas instead of the brake. The car moves forward. They panic and press harder. The car moves forward faster.

I’m ready to take some grief on this one because I’ve found people are passionate about the topic. Before you get too mad at me, please do the experiment I suggest at the beginning of the blog.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Future Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Fired for Being Irresistible

Posted on by

Dental Assistant FiredThere is an interesting case that just got adjudicated in Iowa in which a dentist fired his assistant terminating a ten-year working relationship. It’s interesting for a number of reasons although I find one facet of the case most fascinating of all. I’ll review the situation quickly so you don’t have to read the article and then get into what I think about the case.

A dentist engaged in some mild flirting and exchanged a few sexy text messages with his assistant who is apparently an attractive women. The dentist is a man. The man’s wife found the text messages and demanded the dentist fire his assistant. According to the information I read the assistant didn’t engage the dentist back with flirty behavior but was not particularly offended or upset by his behavior. Eventually the dentist fired the assistant and she brought suit.

What I find most interesting about the case is that both sides are essentially lying about their motivation for the firing in order to win their case. The dentist claims he fired her for inappropriate behavior while she claims she was illegally fired in a gender discrimination case. The real reason the assistant was fired was because the wife of the dentist didn’t trust his husband to behave himself around the assistant. She wasn’t fired either for behaving inappropriately or for being a woman. She was fired because the wife of the dentist didn’t want her around her husband. How does a court of law deal with that?

Depending on the legal termination laws of a state, and I’m not familiar with Iowa’s laws, a person can be fired for just about anything as long as it doesn’t amount to discrimination. In this case the woman wasn’t discriminated against because of her sex. She also wasn’t fired for cause. The reality of the situation is not without precedent. How many of my female readers are completely comfortable with their husband’s very attractive co-worker or are comfortable hiring a beautiful young nanny? Conversely how many of my male readers are happy with an attractive trainer working closely with their wife?

I’d have to hear from an employment attorney in Iowa to really decide if this case was decided properly or not. If you are allowed to fire someone for anything other than discrimination then the judges decided fairly. However, if you have to prove cause to fire in Iowa then I’d say the judges were incorrect. In either case I can say I think the firing was unjustified and the woman unfairly, if not illegally, lost her job.

Shame on the wife for insisting on firing a competent employee who apparently had no sexual interest in her husband. We all must deal with temptation in life. Removing it is sometimes the right strategy but I’m of the opinion that when it’s either resist temptation or cause real and serious harm to another, it’s up to you to resist temptation. It’s not like keeping ice cream sandwiches out of your refrigerator. That helps me stay thin and doesn’t hurt anyone.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Polio Workers Murdered – Not as Open and Shut as You Think

Posted on by

Polio VaccineThere was an astonishing story in the news recently and I read it with my mind already decided on who was in the wrong. It wasn’t until I reached a paragraph buried deeply in the story that I suddenly realized it was not as simple as I first thought.

Basically, the World Health Organization has been running a polio eradication campaign for many years now. Their tremendous success has largely eradicated the crippling disease from the world. There are only three countries left that report cases: Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nigeria.

The situation in Pakistan is that there is a rumor that the polio vaccines are actually a campaign of sterilization conducted by the western world in an attempt to destroy muslims. They also think it is a covert attempt to spy on the Taliban and those who support them.

Before we leap to ridicule lets examine the situation. Remember that in England primarily, but also in the United States, there are many people who refuse to vaccinate because they fear a massive medical conspiracy covering up the supposed connection between vaccines and autism. Secondly, the CIA recently conducted a fake vaccination campaign in Pakistan in an attempt to find Osama Bin Laden.

This is exactly why Libertarians such as myself advocate a non-interference defense strategy. When we go out and try to assassinate our enemies, to attack our enemies, the unexpected consequences hurt us more than our enemies ever could. The hatred that most of the muslim world feels for us was engendered by our behavior in Iran, Egypt, and other dictatorial countries we supported for reasons of national security.

I’m certainly not advocating ignorance. Polio is an awful disease and WHO is doing a magnificent job of stamping it out. The people of Pakistan should demand vaccinations. The Taliban should support the efforts of this organization. The job of government is to serve the people. Polio eradication is objectively good. Murdering health workers is despicable and won’t get you much support with the common person. Many of the brave workers in Pakistan are refusing to stop their efforts despite the murders. That is real courage. That sort of courage will win out in the end when violently trying to destroy our enemies will only create more enemies.

When we help bring water to a village, when we help eradicate a terrible disease, when we improve the lives of others, that is when we will triumph.

Do we have enemies? Yes. Should we defend ourselves? Yes. Is that the way to win the world over to a representative republic style of government? No. We should be a shining example and our fake campaign to eradicate polio was us at our worst. Even if it helped us find Osama Bin Laden it wasn’t worth it. At least in my opinion.

Tell me what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Future Release: The Spear of the Hunt (in conceptual stage)

The Sword of Water

Posted on by

The Sword of Water
I’m happy to announce the release of my fourth Sword and Sorcery novel, The Sword of Water.

Cover art by Raro.

Summary

Jon Gray returns along with his best friend Sorus Nightwalk as they travel to the newly freed island nation of Cawl in search of the Sword of Water. Directed by his enigmatic brother Valari, Jon arrives on the island and quickly finds out the king of the nation is off on a quest but a regent rules in his stead. With permission from Granatz the Black the two heroes set off towards the Central Mountain where rumors of the Sword of Water persist thousands of years after it legendarily ousted the great Fire Elemental twins Eleniak and Hezfer from their citadel.

Young Prince Jerichi and his friend Silenia follow the two champions into the adventure of a lifetime. They journey from the great mountain to the restive city-state of Serapis where Silenia’s father, High Priest Amalagaz, plots against the prince and hopes to usurp control of the newly founded nation.

Muddying the plot is the fact that Eleniak is still alive, blames the Sword of Water for the death of her twin, and plots vengeance against the Water Elemental Silenia. The great fiery ruler manipulates events so that she can lure the Water Elemental from her ancient hiding place.

It’s a battle of courage against fear, a fight for a newly founded nation to survive political turmoil, and a question if young Silenia will lure her namesake into the grasp of Eleniak. Can Jon Gray navigate these tumultuous waters safely or will the young Knight of Gray meet a foe more powerful than even he can manage?

Find out in The Sword of Water; a Tales of Corland adventure featuring Jon Gray.

Purchase Information

The Sword of Water at Amazon – Barnes and Noble – Smashwords: $2.99

Previous Novels

The Staff of Naught at Amazon – Barnes and Noble – Smashwords: $2.99

The Staff of Sakatha at Amazon – Barnes and Noble – Smashwords: $2.99

The Hammer of Fire at Amazon – Barnes and Noble – Smashwords: $2.99

Thank you for purchasing and reading! I hope everyone enjoys the books.

Coming Next

The Spear of the Hunt: During the Dark Ages after the fall of the Empire young nations fought against the terrible chaos that reigned. Among the greatest of heroes from this time is Yumanar of Caparal. He found the ancient Spear of the Hunt, saved his kingdom from destruction, and built a legacy that lives on five hundred years later. This is his story.

Website Pages

See more about each of the novels, read sample chapters, and watch videos about the characters and philosophies behind each book.

The Hammer of Fire – The Staff of Naught – The Staff of Sakatha – The Sword of Water

Doomsday and the Calendar

Posted on by

Calendar SystemI recently helped celebrate my niece’s 17th birthday on Dec 12, 2012 and, as usual, found myself annoyed with any reference to the specialness of a particular day based on the numeric calendar configuration. As you might imagine; I made a nuisance of myself and alienated my mother, sister, niece, and people at nearby tables with my rants against such behavior.

I’ve had some time to think about why this sort of thing bothers me so much and I thought I’d try to explain my position in a rational, objectivist fashion.

Anytime we assign meaning to a date based on its numerical configuration we are essentially descending into barbarism. I know that sounds harsh but with the upcoming Mayan Doomsday predictions and recent memories of other such events I think it’s important for the rational people of the world to set a good example, even when it comes to things like 12/12/12.

Here’s my reasoning. All date systems are arbitrary segmenting of the calendar year into digestible chunks so that we can reference past and future events in a meaningful way. This is all based on the fact that the ball of rock and mud on which we live orbits around the big ball of gas we call the sun once every 365.25 times this same ball of rock and mud spins fully on its access. This spinning takes a period of time we call a day. The orbital period we choose to call a year.

We break this “year” down incrementally to help us reference past and future events. I’ll meet you for lunch on Thursday, Julius Caesar was assassinated on March 15, etc.

There are any number of systems used to make designations on the “calendar”. There is a Chinese Calendar, a Jewish Calendar, a Mayan Calendar, a Julian Calendar, a Gregorian Calendar, an International Fixed Calendar (my personal favorite), and others yet. Each of these is based on some sort of numerical system. Each of these numerical systems has coincidental days where certain numbers line up in notable fashion. The fact that these numbers line up has no meaning. It’s really important to understand this concept. The lining up of numbers has no meaning whatsoever.

As an example. The very second you are reading this sentence is exactly six seconds, six minutes, six hours, six days, six months, and six-hundred and sixty-six years after some time in the past. Every second of every day meets this formula. Every second of every day is exactly 1000 years after some time in the past.

Every day is exactly 12 days, 12 months, and 1012 years after some time in the past. It is just a numerical assignment that has … no meaning!

Calendars are often altered for various reasons and this means that even numerical coincidences are not really fully accurate anyway. When we switched from the Julian to Gregorian calendar 12 days were removed from the counting system. Thus any numerical coincidence is just that, a coincidence.

What if we used a six month sixty-day calendar? Or a four-month ninety-day calendar?

My main point here is that when normally rational and intelligent people assign meaning to something as meaningless as the numerical alignment of 12/12/12 they are promoting barbarism. They are lending credence to nonsensical doomsday predictions. It’s our duty as the rational to dispel this sort of thinking.

So, next time the calendar lines up in some sort of interesting numerical fashion take a moment to explain to anyone nearby, particularly children, how meaningless is this alignment. Instead explain the orbit of the earth around the sun and how various calendars attempt to quantify that and why. You may get a lot of people clucking at how “un-fun” you are and what a “stick-in-the-mud” you are but accept that criticism and know that you are a force of rational good in the world!

Tom Liberman

Cerebral Palsy Wrestler … Wins?

Posted on by

Cerebral Palsy WrestlerThere is an interesting story, at least from an objectivist point of view, making the news rounds. It is a “feel good” story where a young athlete came up against an opponent in a wrestling match who is afflicted with the awful disease of Cerebral Palsy. It is truly a terrible disease that leaves people with full mental capacity and almost no physical abilities. The victim in this case, Jared Stevens, has the physical ability of about a six-month old while he is thirteen years old. A brave young man and he deserves every bit of praise he gets.

What I want to examine here is the notion of good and how it relates to objectivism and this incident. What happened is that Jared’s opponent in the wrestling ring allowed Jared to win. Really, essentially, pulled Jared on top of him and let himself be pinned. Everyone applauded and praised both Jared and his benefactor, Justin Kievit, happily. Certainly judging by the comments and reaction to the story almost everyone agrees it was a generous and wonderful thing to do.

While I praise Justin and his ability to give someone else a moment to shine I’m just not sure it’s as wonderful a thing as everyone seems to think. I do see the value, in a practice or informal match, of allowing an inferior opponent to make a game of it by not focusing as much and even slowing down a bit. It might give them confidence, it might make them happy for a moment, and certainly a junior-high wrestling match outcome is not a big deal one way or the other.

That all being said I’m just not sure what this accomplishes. Is every wrestler Jared comes up against supposed to let him win? Should he be declared the state champion at the end of the season? If there is a district match is Jared allowed in at the expense of another wrestler? I think these are all legitimate questions.

Jared knows he didn’t actually earn his victory. Did he replace another wrestler in that weight class? Did Justin’s team lose the meet because of this match loss?

One of the hallmarks ideas of objectivism is to look at reality. The reality is that Jared cannot compete in a wrestling match with any hope of success. If we pretend to make that happen are we really helping Jared? Are we teaching Justin that his actions were “good” and thus setting him up for failure in the future?

I’m of the opinion that we should generally try to do our best. Again, a father-son game in which the father eases up a little to let the son win is not unreasonable. But to simply lie down and lose? What does the son gain? He knows he didn’t earn victory. What lesson is the father imparting, don’t try, let the inferior athlete win?

I’m certain that I’m coming across as heartless here and that’s not my intent. I just don’t see how this is objectively “good” for either Jared or Justin. What would have been best, in my opinion, is to have Justin pin Jared and congratulate him on his courage for trying.

Winning is of far less importance than trying our best. Jared’s attempt is the victory here, the winning is simply a sham.

Tell me how awful I am in the comments below! 🙂

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Hammer of Fire
Upcoming Release: The Sword of Water (at Barnes and Noble, Amazon, and Smashwords soon)

San Antonio Spurs – Sit Stars

Posted on by

Gregg PopovichThere was an interesting situation in the NBA this week as the San Antonio Spurs basketball team decided to give four of their starters a game off because the team was in a particularly grueling part of the schedule. The NBA commissioner decided that such an action deprived fans the opportunity to see those players and that a fine was in order.

I think it’s a pretty difficult situation for which to find a solution. I think the coach in question, Gregg Popovich, has a point in that three of the four players given the day off are older veterans with injury histories, and that giving them the road game off enhances their ability to last out the season. I also think the commissioner has a point in that fans paid a fairly hefty price for those tickets with the hopes of seeing the star players.

As a St. Louis Cardinals fan I’ve been to Busch Stadium many times when people in the stands around me were from fairly far away and in town for their once a year trip with children to see the team. When the manager gave Albert Pujols or one of the other stars the day off this was a major disappointment for these fans.

There is no doubt the commissioner has the right to impose fines on the coach or the team for this decision. It is well within the duties outlined for that position. The question I ask is whether the league has the right to punish game-day decisions? Should the NFL impose a penalty on the San Francisco 49ers when a I’m disappointed to not see Alex Smith play this week against my Rams? If Danny Amendola is available to play but the coach decides to sit him to prevent further injury does the commissioner step in with a fine?

I’m of the opinion that the league should not try to govern these sorts of decisions. If the Spurs sit some of their players then that’s their business. If it bothers enough fans then they will suffer in dropped attendance. Once the league starts getting involved in player-personnel decisions they are creating a dangerous precedent.

I don’t think it’s an easy line to draw for the commissioner and I see how people can argue that the integrity of the game is at stake. The reality to me is that every coach is out there making decisions in an attempt to win the championship. If that means sacrificing your chances in a particular game to enhance the chances of overall victory that’s a choice best left to the coach, not the commissioner.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Hammer of Fire
Upcoming Release: The Sword of Water (Available at Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Smashwords soon)

Power Bracelet Scam – Mark Cuban

Posted on by

Mark CubanI haven’t posted in a while because I’ve been working on my new novel. There have been a number of juicy stories in the news but the NBA – Mark Cuban – Bracelet story is right in my wheelhouse and I couldn’t resist a quick blog.

Basically the NBA is now in a business arrangement with a company called Power Balance. They make bracelets for athletes that supposedly boost athletic performance. These types of bracelets have been around for a long time and I remember quite well the trend in the golf industry when many people started wearing copper bracelets for their supposed healing powers.

The company in question recently was forced to make a $57 million payment for false advertising and went into bankruptcy. They are now back and partnered with the NBA who is putting pressure on the teams to make them available to their athletes.

Here is where Cuban comes in. For those of you who are not big sports fans, Mark Cuban is the owner of the NBA team the Dallas Mavericks. It’s a good match. Cuban is known for his outspoken attitude and has been fined by the league to the tune of $1.6 million. He’s flamboyant and a bit of a jackass and not one of my favorite people in the world. But, today, sir, Mr. Cuban, I salute you!

A number of scientific studies showed exactly what everyone knows: Benefits of wearing the bracelet are at most a placebo effect. If people want to throw away $40 on the bracelets that’s their business. As a libertarian I think this sort of scam is so transparently phony that anyone taken in gets what they deserve. Even if the company is making false advertising claims people should know better.

That beings said, Mr. Cuban is absolutely right that an organization like the NBA, whose influence stretches far and wide, has no business partnering with such scam artists. It is when we give legitimacy to such endeavors, usually for money, that we allow evil to triumph in the world. When we see things like this we must stand up to our friends, our neighbors, our countrymen and tell them this is a scam. They don’t have to believe us but we, the rational, must speak up!

Nicely done Mr. Cuban. Nicely done indeed.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Hammer of Fire
Upcoming Release: The Sword of Water (at Barnes and Noble, Amazon, and Smashwords soon)

Justice Alito Defends Citizens United

Posted on by

Citizens UnitedThe Supreme Court justices are making the rounds during their time off and it’s always interesting to hear what these incredibly intelligent men and women think. They generally try to stay pretty far away from controversy but Justice Alito defended the Citizens United decision before the Federalist Society in their annual dinner.

I personally think the Supreme Court is a shining example of our best and brightest although I do disagree with them not infrequently. In this case Justice Alito uses an argument to defend Citizens United that I just couldn’t stomach. I will quote you what he said:

“The question is whether speech that goes to the very heart of government should be limited to certain preferred corporations; namely, media corporations,” he said. “Surely the idea that the First Amendment protects only certain privileged voices should be disturbing to anybody who believes in free speech.”

Basically he is suggesting that newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and other media outlets have the right to speak freely as provided by the First Amendment and that right should carry over to every other corporate entity.

He loses me completely here. No newspaper, radio station, television station, or other media outlet has any right to free speech. In fact, they can’t speak at all. They can’t express themselves in any fashion whatsoever. The people who work for those organizations can certainly express themselves as they desire. That is what the First Amendment is all about. No building, no pen, no stone, no piece of paper has a mouth with which to speak or brain with which to formulate a thought. This seems self-evident to me.

This idea that a non-human entity has the right to freedom of speech is absurd. Yes, the writer has that right. The speaker has that right. Can a person donate to any political entity? Of course, that is covered by the First Amendment. Can the owner of a company, the head of a union, a mother, a father, or a teacher donate to a political candidate. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Can a building? Can a piece of paper? Not only is it not allowed by the Constitution but it is also impossible as declared by the physical laws of the universe.

Now, a little history lesson. The reason organizations have what is called Corporate Personhood is primarily to hold such organizations to contractual obligations. This was decided in Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819. It largely limits the ability of the government to interfere in a private contract. The other reason it exists is to allow people to sue such entities.

I cannot see any justifiable reason why a state legislature or the federal government cannot ban giving money to a political candidate by an organization. If they tried to prevent an individual from giving, then I would have a problem. In the end, it is an individual giving. A person or people start an organization, gather money from other individuals, and then someone makes a decision on how to distribute that money to politicians. Dandy. I say make them do it under their real name and donate the money the same way. In the end the result is the same except there is at least a clarity of who is doing what instead of a mass of twisted paths wherein no one knows who is donating to what campaign. This openness is desirable.

That being said, I actually welcome the clarification Citizen’s United brings. Before this case there was largely an illusion that our politicians were not bought and sold by those who financed their campaign. That veneer is now destroyed. It is clear that we are not becoming a plutocracy, we are a plutocracy.

Those who think that moneyed interests were thwarted in the recent election are living in a fantasy world. Moneyed interests control both major parties all but completely. That is a topic for another day.

Tom Liberman

Libertarian Final Tally – 2012 Election

Posted on by

As a Libertarian I wanted to review how my party did in the 2012 election.

Before I begin my review of events I want to say something to my Democrat and Republican friends. I don’t think you were fooled by the media. I don’t think you were tricked into voting against what you wanted. I don’t think the powers that be filled you with so much fear that you voted against your own interests. I think you voted for various candidates with full knowledge of both their strengths and weaknesses. I think you are intelligent, interesting people, and good friends. While I hope you consider Libertarian candidates in the future I’m not under the illusion that you are sheep nor do I blame you for all the ills this country faces. I think you want what’s best for the United States of America. I’m glad you voted and chose to willingly participate in the election.

Now, as to the final results. Libertarians are bragging about how Gary Johnson got the largest total number of votes ever for a Libertarian candidate but the reality is he got about 1% of the vote. This is better than usual but not particularly good. This was a major defeat. We Libertarians failed to get our message across to most voters. We failed to convince you that our policies are best for the United States. Libertarians failed to win a single seat in the United States House of Representatives or the Senate.

In order to further our agenda we must engage the American public and convince them that our policies are in line with their own. I’m convinced that the policies of the Libertarian party are actually more compatible with the majority of people than are those of either the Democrats or Republicans. Yet we have failed to make a connection with voters. It’s not completely unfair to blame current election laws that favor the two parties are even media outlets for not reporting Libertarian ideas but the reality is that we live in a free country where there is an ever-increasing ability to disseminate information to anyone and everyone without the necessity of an established press presence. That we continue to fail is no one’s fault but our own.

Right now people do not want to vote for Libertarians. We must find ways to explain our positions to the American people.

We don’t blame Republicans for this failure, we don’t blame Democrats for this failure, we don’t say that people are stupid, we don’t blame the press. If we failed to engage the American people then we take the blame. I, Tom Liberman, did not do enough. Gary Johnson did not do enough. We need to work harder. I need to work harder.

See you soon!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Hammer of Fire
Upcoming release: The Sword of Water