Fired for Being Irresistible

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

World of Warcraft = Victory!

About a month ago I wrote about a candidate for the Maine State Senate who was being attacked for playing World of Warcraft. It was supposedly her “disturbing alter-ego”. Well, the election is over and … She Won!

Send your congratulations to her Facebook Page.

Hooray for the Horde!

Hooray for gamers!

And especially hooray for voters! Well done!

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

States versus Federal Government – Marijuana

Marijuana LegalizedI find one of the most interesting outcomes of the recent election to be the battle between state’s rights and federal authority. Two states brought this issue directly to a head when they voted to make marijuana legal for people over the age of 21. The great states of Colorado and Washington thumbed their nose at the federal government by passing laws making personal use of marijuana legal.

There is a long history of states trying to assert their rights over the federal government and much change, for ill and good, has come from these efforts. The Nullification crisis of 1832 pitted Andrew Jackson against South Carolina. Jackson largely proved victorious although states did gain some compensations. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution largely came about because states were implementing the change individually rather than wait for the federal government. It is not uncommon for states to lead the way by passing laws that eventually the federal government adopts, but it is much rarer for states to make legal that which the federal government has determined to be illegal. That’s what is happening in Colorado, Washington, and almost certainly more states in the coming years.

The question the Obama Justice Department must ask itself is if they want to try to fight by enforcing the law without help from the state. It’s an important constitutional question. Eighteen states now make it legal to smoke marijuana with a prescription from a doctor. Until April of 2012 the federal government prosecuted users who obtained marijuana in that way. In that month the Justice Department said they would no longer attempt to prosecute users but would still go after dispensaries. With two states now making it legal for personal use the administration must consider the resources they will devote to this task.

Polls suggest the majority of Americans, 56%, think that marijuana should be legal and regulated in the manner of tobacco and alcohol. That is somewhat tangential to the real question; what will the federal government do?

I don’t know the answer to that question but I’m fairly certain the ultimate result will be that states force the federal government to capitulate. This demonstrates the importance of state’s rights in our republic. As long as the people in each state have the ability to redress an overstepping federal authority then we have a better chance of basic freedom. Now, sometimes people want to nullify what I would consider legitimate federal jurisdiction but that’s the price we pay for having a free nation.

Where the constitution does not speak the rights revert to the states and to the people. Some states and counties might pass laws I don’t like but the right to do so is imperative. As a Libertarian I’m of the strong opinion that the federal government is involved in many areas it does not have the authority to regulate. I hope the states are on their way to redressing this issue without violent revolution in a manner that sees the republic continue.

We shall see!

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

Youth Football and Gambling

Youth FootballThere’s an interesting case breaking right now in Southern Florida involving youth football and gambling rings. It’s a poorly written article with an obvious bias but the story itself evokes several interesting questions.

In this case a group of coaches set gambling lines for youth football games in South Florida. This area of the country is one of the most football crazy regions in the nation. But, let’s not kid ourselves. There is plenty of gambling going on over Texas high school football. We all know about sports betting for professional and college football. It is a huge industry.

What happened in this case is that an entrepreneur found an avenue for profit. People wanted to gamble on the youth football games and someone provided an outlet. The story indicates, and it could be wrong, that whoever was controlling the gambling exerted influence to make certain that no point shaving occurred. That means they were trying to put up an honest game. An honest game is generally in the best interest of the house. It sounds strange but the house prefers an honest game. It is only the gambler that wants to cheat the house.

The problem with gambling is the ancillary harm and illegal activity it can engender. Dishonest games. Players paid to throw the game or change the final score. Referees bribed. Then of course there are those who gamble too much and must suffer for their mistakes. There are the families of those who lose all their money and must accept the consequences through no fault of their own.

It might be difficult to bribe a professional football player but not nearly as hard to corrupt someone making no money at all, a ten-year old quarterback. A coach, a player, a referee, even the ball boy could deflate a ball at a key moment. All these things are possible. I certainly understand why a state would want to make gambling illegal and they certainly have the right to do so.

I’m just not sure it’s a good idea. Generally making things illegal feeds criminals money, lots of money. This money then leads to violence as fights over who gets it occur. Do we think that once people know how much money can be made from youth football gambling that the problem will go away because of a few arrests? Or do we suspect that the underground nature of the gambling will lead to increased criminal activity?

It’s a difficult question to answer. With that much money involved there are bound to be unshady types attracted to it. I guarantee that right now, in your office, on your block, or even in your house, there is someone making an illegal bet and someone else taking it. Do we extend legal sports gambling down to youth football so that people have an outlet to make their wagers? With a legal outlet available many will choose it.

I’m of the opinion this is the only practical solution but I can see where people would disagree.

It’s a fascinating case and I’d love to see what you think! Please comment and don’t be shy about disagreeing with me!

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

Rare Earth Elements and China

Irare earth elementsn my daily perusal of news stories I’ve noted a recent trend in misinformation about China’s monopoly on what are called rare earth elements and the danger this represents to the United States. I thought I’d take a quick look at what these elements are, how they are used, and how China’s cutback on shipment of the elements will affect the world. It’s not a particularly exciting story but I found it interesting and I thought some others might as well.

The Wikipedia article is extremely thorough and you should look at it for more details but I’ll try to summarize quickly.

Rare Earth Elements are not rare. They are fairly common although they encompass a wide variety of elements. Seventeen to be exact. Some are much rarer than others and they have many varied uses including with lasers, alloys, superconductors, magnets, and even chemical reducing agents.

The big controversy seems to be that China controls the total world output as almost a monopoly, currently about 90% . This is true but deceiving. China controls about 23% of the proven reserves of the elements although even this is a high figure because China has done far and away the most searching for the elements.

Up until 1980 the United States was the leading producer of these elements and even as late as 1990 China only produced about 27% of the total amount. However, they were undertaking a massive program to mine these elements and soon flooded the market with cheap product. This immediately wiped out all competition and lead to them reaching as high total contribution of about 95%.

A lesson about monopolies is in order here. I’m a Libertarian and I do think capitalism is the best economic strategy but there are anti-trust laws for a reason. Monopolies are dangerous not only to the general public but to nations as well. When one company or nation controls the vast majority of a highly sought after commodity only ill can follow.

Anyway, enough of that talk for now. This is about rare earth elements.

For various reasons China is now reducing its exports of the elements and the last few years have seen ramped-up efforts to resume mining in the United States and other countries for fear of shortages. This is a natural evolution of capitalism and perfectly normal. The thing to keep in mind is that there are actually plenty of these elements available. It is only because of the monopolistic practices of China that they are not being mined in more places, it simply wasn’t profitable. If it becomes profitable then the mines will spring up.

One more quick aside and then I’ll be done. The mining of these elements usually releases something called Thorium which is radioactive and has been blamed for a number of health problems around the mines, particularly in China and other countries that don’t have regulations against pollution. One reason China is reducing output is because of popular unrest over the rise in toxic waste in the water supply from unregulated, illegal operations.

So, I don’t foresee a rare earth element panic because other nations will begin to mine once China reduces output. It might take a few years to ramp up production but there is, in my opinion, no serious danger. Surveys of the seabeds near hydrothermal vents seem to indicate massive reserves are available for eventual exploitation. Health concerns are legitimate but that’s what limited governmental regulations are all about. Keep an eye on the mines and make sure they aren’t dumping Thorium and all should be well.

Thanks for listening to this boring blog. I hope someone finds it interesting!

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

Is Your Yard Sale Criminal?

Yard SaleThere is a fascinating case at the Supreme Court this term that has potentially far-reaching consequences to eBay, Thrift Stores, and even your Yard Sale. It is quite possibly that selling a lamp during your yard sale was an illegal activity. More importantly you might be heavily fined or even imprisoned for doing it!

The gist of the case is that a foreign student in the United States found out that text books sell for a lot less in his home country than they did at the student bookstore. He had relatives purchase the books in his home country and ship them to the United States where he resold them to fellow students for a tidy little profit! The book publishers took him to court for copyright infringement, he was found guilty, and ordered to pay $600,000 to the publishers. Unable to pay they took most of his possessions.

The basic idea is that once a person purchases something they own it and can resell it for whatever price they desire. The court decided that this did not apply to foreign products. As I’m sure almost all of you are aware, most of the things we purchase these days are not made in the United States. Thus, anything we resell through eBay or our yard is potentially an illegal sale and the original manufacturer is entitled to damages if I undercut their market.

Those that argue that the damage ruling is correct claim that there is nothing to worry about because the manufacturers are not going to pursue legal action against people selling such items unless it is on a large-scale. Well, I don’t like the idea that it’s ok to break the law because no one is going to prosecute you. It’s certainly likely that no one is ever going to be subject to penalties for reselling items in their yard sales but it’s a fairly big deal for eBay and other auction house sellers because they can and do work on a scale similar to the one in question.

Also, companies like Costco actually do this on a massive scale. They purchase foreign items cheaply, ship them to the US, and then resell them in their stores. So this case isn’t just about a few people but potentially large corporate entities.

For the moment I’m going to say that I think it’s ok to resell something you purchased even if it’s from a foreign country but I’m going to stay tuned on this one and see what the Justices decide. I’ll try to remember to read their opinions and understand their logic so that I can report back in a few months.

In the meantime I’d suggest you read about the case and hopefully tell me what you think in the comments and with the poll.

[polldaddy poll=6640468]

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

Shark Attacks vs Deer Attacks

DeerDo you fear sharks?

Do you fear deer?

The concept of fear is one of the main themes in my upcoming novel The Sword of Water. I’ll be talking about fear in a number of blogs from now until it is released.

I’ve spoken to a number of people who fear shark attacks. I’ve never spoken to anyone who feared deer.

The number of shark attacks in the world reached an all-time reported high of 75 in 2011. Does that number make you pause before entering the ocean? Does it make you want to spend public money to make beaches safer with shark netting and other safety precautions? I wouldn’t think that you’re alone if it does.

Were you aware that over 200 United States citizens die every year in accidents caused by deer darting in front of their car? The chances of dying from a deer in the United States are significantly higher than those of being attacked by a shark. Remember, the numbers listed in the link are shark attacks worldwide. Attacks and deaths in the United States are much lower than the 75 listed in the article.

Sharks are scary looking. Deer are not. Sharks have nasty bitey teeth. They are top-level predators. They are scary. But, the reality is that deer are far more dangerous. Let’s be honest, last year more than 32,000 people died while driving and this represents a decrease! In 2009 some 37,000 people died from drug related incidents. These are largely not criminal drugs but prescription medication.

My point here isn’t to be an alarmist. Life is dangerous. You can be killed by a shark, you can die when a deer causes you to drive off the road, you can be killed in a non-deer related traffic accident, your prescription medication can kill you, you can be hit by lightning, or die in a fire.

The question to ask is if we want to live in a world with no deer, with no sharks, with no cars, with no pain medication? Do we want to trade the experience of life for safety?

The old saying goes that freedom isn’t free. That might be true but more pertinent to the world of today is the idea that freedom isn’t safe. Our politicians promise us safety in exchange for freedom. It’s a bad bargain. Anyone who offers you safety for freedom is up to no good. We live in an ever-growing police state where the government has the ability to watch us at all times, to arrest us without cause, to hold us without charge, and to torture us because we might have useful information.

I guess I’m saying don’t let our fear of deer stop you from driving to the park. Just know they could be on the road and be prepared in case one jumps out in front of you (run it over, don’t swerve).

I’ll be talking more about fear in the coming weeks and months. I think it’s an important topic for all of us to think about.

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

Elastic Currency and National Debt

Elastic CurrencySome time ago when I first starting blogging here on WordPress I wrote a post about the Gold Standard. In it I tried to explain the concept in its most simple form. Today I’m going to try to explain the term of Elastic Currency. These two terms are linked together as monetary policy siblings and a thorough understanding of both concepts is a precursor to being able to fully understand the financial problems that face the United States.

As with my Gold Standard article I’m not going to get too technical nor am I going to make too many suggestions as to whether or not this policy is best for the country and the world. I think it’s important to understand the concepts and only after that can people make informed decisions about the financial future of the United States.

The idea of Elastic Currency is that a central banking institute can expand or contract the amount of money available to lending institutions based on economic conditions. This is deemed to be important for two linked reasons. The history of economies throughout the world is a history of boom and bust cycles. These cycles bring tremendous hardships to nations and the goal is to alleviate the pain of these events.

In a boom/bust cycle a particular item becomes attractive to buyers which spurts a speculative interest in those sorts of items. Be it dotCom, Housing, or whatever. Basically people find that they can purchase the product and then sell it later for a profit. This fuels the boom. More and more people purchase the product which drives the prices higher and higher generating further profits and more speculation. The boom “bubble” grows and grows until the product is selling for far more than it is worth. Then, all the people holding the product at the end are bankrupted when people suddenly stop buying. This destroys economies because the people can’t pay back the money they’ve borrowed and the people who loaned the money also go bankrupt. Thus, there is no money to loan others and we enter bust.

The idea behind Elastic Currency is that a central banking institute recognizes a boom cycle is going on and reduces the amount of available currency to loan and tempers the speed and size of the bubble which bursts with far less grave consequences. Likewise, during the ensuing bust cycle the banking institute allows more money to become available for loans thus paving the way for new growth by those who played it safe and did not engage in the boom but would otherwise be shut out by the lack of available loans.

The demise of the Bretton Woods gold standard in 1971 and the rise of Bretton Woods II is clearly linked to the current level of indebtedness that the United States and much of Europe face. Whether there was another, better, solution is unclear.

So, that’s the main idea of Elastic Currency.

I promised not to make too many suggestions as to fixing the rising debt we face but one thing that I think has been ignored by the Federal Reserve and the financial agencies of other countries is that Elastic Currency can and should be contracted at times. It is not merely a tool to fuel growth but also to temper expansion. The other suggestion is that the Federal Reserve’s job to limit the boom/bust cycle is not to eliminate all bust. Moderate bust is good. It weeds out weak players and allows for the growth of new, vigorous entrants into the economy.

I hope this little essay explains some of the concept of Elastic Currency to my legion of followers. I do not pretend it is an exhaustive treatise on the subject and I recommend a perusal of the Wiki articles linked above for a far greater understanding of the process.

Thanks for listening and feel free to comment below either in agreement or disagreement. All are welcome!

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

Earthquake Scientists Jailed for Bad Prediction

Scientist EarthquakeAn incredibly interesting and potentially dangerous verdict came down today in Italy. A group of seismologists were charged with failing to correctly predict the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila in which 309 people died and another 60,000 were left homeless.

The details of the case seem to indicate that the scientists didn’t consider an earthquake to be imminent, despite smaller tremors, and told the local politicians as much. This information was disseminated to the people of the region who then did not evacuate or make quake preparations. Thus, when the earthquake struck, most people were unprepared. The main earthquake was preceded by weeks of smaller quakes which concerned people but the assurances by the government and scientists alleviated these worries.

The seven scientists brought to trial have now been found guilty and sentenced to as many as six years in jail for their crime.

I’m of two minds about both the prosecution and the guilty verdict. Firstly, I don’t doubt that local politicians, tourist boards, and businesses exerted some pressure on the scientist to minimize the threat for fear of lost revenue. I don’t know all the pertinent facts in the case but it seems likely this sort of influence was put forward. If the scientists buckled to this pressure and the evidence actually suggested that a quake was imminent then I’d support both the trial and the verdict, but, to be honest, I’m skeptical this happened.

Again, I’m not naive, I know the scientists were probably under some pressure but the science of earthquake prediction is inexact to say the least and to convict the scientists of manslaughter is a very dangerous precedent. My major issue is that the problem that the verdict hopes to alleviate, scientists not warning people of danger, will actually not be helped in any way.

Let me explain. In the future scientists will err on the side of alarmist predictions to avoid similar prosecution. It is like what we now see with the early Tsunami warning system. An earthquake happens, tsunami warnings shoot out across the region, nothing happens. This sort of Chicken Little event will cause the public to view such warnings with increasing skepticism. This will lead to greater inaction when a real threat approaches.

My conclusion is that both the prosecution and conviction of the seven scientists will mean less safety for the average person and will lead to greater insecurity as scientists blare out warnings too often and citizens begin to disregard them. There will also be over-reaction to the new warnings which will cause lost revenue and other potential harm in panicked populations. And, we’ll be frightening children unnecessarily which is not good.

I would have preferred some sort of internal review of the scientists to see if they unduly bowed to pressure in their conclusions about the likelihood of an earthquake and, if it is determined they did, that some internal sanctions take place.

What do you think?

[polldaddy poll=6628589]

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

Boxers or Briefs – Abercrombie Dress Code

briefsThere’s a not so interesting story in the news today that brings up a much more interesting question about dress-codes.

Basically, a private pilot for the CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch claims he was fired in an age-discrimination case. That’s the boring part, not that the pilot shouldn’t have his day in court. What’s interesting is the behavior and dress-code stipulated by Abercrombie CEO Michael Jeffries for flight attendants is 40-pages long and states what sort of underwear that male attendants could wear, boxer-briefs only.

It’s an interesting question for me because I have no problem with dress-codes or even behavior codes for employees. If you work for a company then they should be allowed to decide how you appear as a representative of that business. When I contracted at Anheuser-Busch they strongly recommended having a beer with your dinner when out with clients and that beer should be company product. At Hooters or Fridays or just about any service industry there are uniform requirements. Many places even require that tattoos be covered.

But, underwear? This is something that should never been seen by anyone at work. I think I’d be a little put off if my company told me what sort of underwear I could wear. I completely understand the argument that if I don’t want to wear that particular sort of underwear I shouldn’t take the job. But, what if they told me I had to wear contact lenses instead of glasses? Or I had to dye my hair blonde? Is there a limit to what an employer can demand as far as personal appearance? Particularly if said requirement is not visible?

It’s not even what’s at question in the lawsuit so I’m not sure there is a point to my thoughts today. I’m just sort of curious what people think.

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

Psychics Mislead Grieving Families

Psychics spew Nonsense

Overview

Sadly, psychics are in the news again and things don’t seem to have changed much from the times of the ancient Greeks with the Oracle of Delphi to current times and  John Edwards. As a Libertarian and Objectivist I’m torn by this particular industry.

On one side I see that people are not being forced to go to a psychic, they are not being forced to spend their money, they are certainly not being forced to believe the nonsense they are told. I’ve had a number of friends go to psychic fairs and come back at least marginally convinced in the accuracy of their readings.

On the other side I see fraud against people who are at their most vulnerable. It seems fairly common that a psychic comes forward to give misguided hope to the family of a missing child, for a price. This sort of financial manipulation of grieving family members is truly vile and, in my opinion, rises to the level of criminality. Anyone who goes to a psychic is vulnerable in some way and they are being manipulated.

Vulnerable People

I’m not going to spend your valuable time trying to prove how ridiculous is the entire psychic industry nor how vile are those who take advantage of people in a distressed mental state. What I’d like to discuss is the culpability of the average person in this industry. My friends who go to a psychic fair, the parent who reads a horoscope to their child, the match-maker who uses astrological birth-signs to set up couple, all of these people are supporting an industry that preys on grief-stricken people.

A 2005 Gallup poll indicates that 41% of people believe in some sort of extra-sensory perception. However, I’m not willing to dismiss this group as hopeless. I think it’s clear from story after story that psychics prey on vulnerable people and far more than 59% of people find that disgusting. Even if you’re in the 41% who believe in some sort of psychic phenomenon you most likely despise this sort of manipulation.

So, I ask the 41%, is it worth it? Is the fantasy of psychic powers, of someone knowing the future, worth the damage it entails?

Skeptics Stand Up

To the 59% percent I say, don’t stand idly by when your friends go to psychic fairs and read their daily horoscope. You don’t have to tell them they are stupid, that psychics are wrong and vile. Just say, out loud, that you don’t believe in that sort of thing. Every time you hear someone talking about such things; politely interrupt and say that you don’t believe it and then don’t participate in the conversation.

When we skeptics stand up, politely, you never know who we might inspire.

Tom Liberman

Where is Gary Johnson?

Gary JohnsonThe second Presidential Debate is going on about now, or so I’d guess. I’m not watching. My guy wasn’t invited … again.

Gary Johnson.

Live Free. Live free, my friends. Live free.

As of this moment Gary Johnson will not become President of the United States. Libertarian candidates in general will not win many elections for Senator, Governor, Congressman, or much of anything else at a national or state level.

The world is approaching a crisis and a great man once told a nation that the only thing they had to fear was fear itself. The closer we get to this crisis the more fear paralyzes us into inaction.

Are you afraid of Obama? Are you afraid of Romney? Are you afraid of Iran getting nuclear weapons? Are you afraid for Social Security? Is your fear driving your vote?

Are you willing to sacrifice your freedom for the illusion of safety?

Are you afraid of “throwing your vote away”?

Are you absolutely certain you’re right? Are you sure the other guy is wrong? Do you skip listening and reading other points of view?

If so, then we don’t want you now, but we hope you’ll give up on fear and join us.

We want people who know that a vote a Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. We want people who understand that hardship is part of life. We want people who think it’s not wrong to help those who are suffering. We want people who are willing to work with those who don’t agree with them. We want people who listen to the other side of an argument. We want people who know it’s easy to make a mistake, who are willing to admit a mistake, who are willing to forgive someone else for making a mistake. We want people who know there are no easy answers and anyone trying to sell them is a charlatan.

If you are afraid; then you should feel right at home in the United States of America, the land where fear mongering wins elections and reasonable compromise is forgotten.

We can change everything. Every election we get that opportunity. We might not make change this time, or next time, but we’re here, and we’re not giving up.

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