The Decision of an Objectivist is not Static but that does not make it Subjective

Posted on by

objectivist thinking
It is my opinion there is a large and important debate going on in the world between those who hold an Objectivist philosophy and those who favor the Subjectivist point of view. One idea, objectivism, is that each problem has a correct path to follow and that an objective person should attempt to find it. The other idea is that there is no real correct path, the decision that I choose is always correct simply because that is what I wanted at the moment. This morning, as I was deciding on breakfast at Whole Foods, I made an interesting realization about these concepts and much of the confusion they engender.

My story goes as follows: Whole Foods generally has two breakfast sandwiches that interest me; a breakfast burrito and a breakfast muffin. Both cost the same amount but one, the burrito, is significantly larger than the other. However, I enjoy the taste of the muffin more. The subjectivist will say there is no right answer. I might choose one today and another tomorrow. The objectivist will suggest that one choice is right for me and the other wrong. The reality is one day I might be hungry or have less money for a later lunch purchase and thus the burrito is the correct choice. Another day I might have more money or be less hungry and the muffin is a wiser decision.

What I think it is critical to understand is that just because I made two different choices on two different days doesn’t make either of my decisions subjective. I analyzed my desires at each moment and made the correct, objective, decision in both cases. The subjectivist will incorrectly argue these events prove their point. The circumstances of the moment changed the resulting choice. They will say there is no “right” answer. All answers are subject to the circumstances and opinions of the moment.

This is where I think most subjectivist go understandably wrong. The decisions, while different, are objectively correct both days. This is the heart of the objectivist position about how to conduct your life. We try to make decisions that are going to best improve our lives taking into account the affect of the decision both in the short and long-term.

It is clear I made two different decisions on subsequent days. It appears the decision itself is completely subjective but it is actually quite objective both days. This is a difficult and fine nuance. A subjectivist believes that it doesn’t matter what I choose on either day, it is the right choice because I made the decision. An objectivist believes there is a correct decision on both days. The difference is illustrated when we imagine a third party weighing our decision.

I’m not particularly hungry, I prefer the taste of the muffin sandwich, I have an early lunch date planned with Emily Ratajkowski, and I decide to have the muffin over the burrito. From a third-party point of view that is clearly the correct decision. This demonstrates the clear delineation between an objective decision and a subjective decision. If I chose the burrito under the circumstances outlined it would have been objectively the wrong decision.

In this case, the wrong decision doesn’t lead to dire results. I’m simply enjoying my breakfast less and, being full, decide to cancel my date with Ratajkowski. On second thought, maybe the results are catastrophic!

In our lives we are faced with thousands of decisions each day. It is by making objectively correct choices that we improve our lives and the circumstances of those around us. That’s the goal. The sum of all these decisions often determines the course of our lives. The more objectively correct decisions we make, the better off we will be in the long run.

This is why I think it’s important to sweep aside the ideas of subjectivism. What is good for me is good for those around me. When, as individuals, we start to make a greater percentage of objectively good decisions, we improve the world around us. The more people who engage in such behavior the better the world becomes. A society filled with people making good decisions rises while one filled with people making bad decisions fails.

It is a numbers game. If 5% of the people in one group are making good, objective decisions, and 10% of the people in a second, relatively equally sized group, are doing the same. The second group will largely be better off. The idea is to give people the foundation of objective, critical thinking, so that all our lives are improved.

Tom Liberman

The Great Bologna Bust

Posted on by

Contraband BolognaThere’s a news story about a woman who tried to bring bologna into the United States but was stopped by border patrol agents and it’s tickling the fancy of audiences everywhere. An unnamed woman attempted to bring in about two-hundred and twenty-seven pounds of the savory meat but when she declared it, was fined $1,000 and the meat was confiscated and destroyed. Why? I’m not sure.

I’ve read several articles about the incident which all claim different reasons for the seizure. One says the meat contained pork, another says it was simply originally undeclared, a third claims it can cause disease in the pork industry. None of those reasons makes much sense to me. Bologna is generally made from pork so what’s the problem? She forgot to declare it at first but then remembered at the second stop, who cares? How is processed bologna a threat to the pork industry?

The mere fact that three different news articles had three different explanations for the seizure and fine indicates that the sources of information for the articles probably didn’t know why the meat was seized in the first place and were making things up. Maybe, I don’t know. I do know if we have to stop someone from bringing bologna into the country, destroy it, and steal $1,000 from said person then something is wrong with the country.

I think it’s important to understand the base reason behind the entire incident. Various government agencies; federal, state, and local all, finance their operations through money taken from citizens for supposed violations of the law. This is not the way it was designed to be. We pay taxes to finance our government. If government needs other methods to take our money in order to pay their bills there is one of two things happening. Either we are not paying enough in taxes to finance their reasonable expenses or they are spending far too much and using us to pay for their extravagances. Can you guess which one is more likely?

We have gotten to the point where almost every government agency in our country funds itself one way or another through seizure of our money based on laws designed simply to take that money. This is a never-ending circle. The government needs more money, our representatives don’t have to convince us to support legislation for taxes, they simply pass ludicrous laws and begin to enforce them. It is plain to see, the majority of laws we now encounter are not designed to make us safer, but simply to steal our money so politicians can spend it on things they want.

One of the ways they connive us is the supposed lowering of taxes. We think we are paying less but they simply find even more revenue another way; fees, fines, seizures, licenses, you name it. We don’t care when it is someone else from whom they are stealing, we smile and shake our heads until it is us they prey upon. Only then do we get angry. We should all be angry when government takes money in any way, from anyone, that isn’t justified through reasonable argument.

As long as the people are willing to believe the excuses for the ridiculous laws the government enforces, they will continue to take our money. We must say enough is enough. No one is hurt when someone brings in bologna from Mexico. There is no danger. The government simply took someone’s money, and if you’re okay with that, you are part of the problem.

Tom Liberman

Net Neutrality and all the Hype

Posted on by

Net NeutralityThere is a lot of news about Net Neutrality these days and the people who are proponents are incredibly passionate while those who are against are quite determined. The current administration and the Federal Communication Commission seem bent on eliminating Net Neutrality and tout all the benefits of doing so. Those who oppose fill my Social Media with diatribes and examples about how the internet will be destroyed. Frankly, it’s a lot of hype on both sides.

I’m not going to make this a long dissertation on exactly what Net Neutrality is and is not. Instead I’d like to focus on the idea it just won’t make that much of a difference either way. In doing so I understand I’m going to make enemies on both sides of this passionate debate, so be it.

There is a single factor causing the majority of the problems we have with our internet providers, the lack of competition. This dates back to the monopolies granted to cable providers. Basically, territories of the United States were broken up and given to single companies to provide cable access. These monopolies largely continue to exist across the country.

There is a distinct lack of competition in the industry and this means consumers have few, if any choices, about whom provides them with internet access. This means the power largely resides with the companies rather than the customers. They can apply any sort of rules they want and their customers have nowhere else to go. Thus, if an internet provider decides to throttle customers or block particular content there is nowhere else for the consumer to go, they must simply accept the status-quo.

It’s extraordinarily important to note prior to 2015 Net Neutrality was merely a concept that many internet providers followed simply because it made good business sense not to anger their customers. There are some choices in the industry and providers voluntarily gave open content and access to their customers in an effort to provide good service.

There were some exceptions but when they came to light, consumer pressure generally forced the provider to change the policy, it was not government enforced Net Neutrality that did anything, at least before June 12, 2015 when the provisions were accepted by the FCC.

If we had strong competition in the field then Net Neutrality would most certainly be a negative concept. If we had many choices and a company was not providing us with a good service we would simply go elsewhere. Once you get a bad meal at a particular restaurant, do you go back? Of course not, there are far too many good choices. It is the lack of competition that makes it appear we need Net Neutrality. The problem was created by the government, mainly municipal and state, in creating monopolies in the first place. The answer isn’t to enforce Net Neutrality but to open the market to competition.

The reality is enforcing or repealing Net Neutrality in our current situation isn’t going to do any harm or any good. We didn’t have Net Neutrality prior to 2015 and things were fairly much exactly the way they are now. Removing Net Neutrality is not going to bring the benefits claimed by those who oppose the concept. Keeping it is not going to fix the current problems we all have because of the lack of competition.

The proof seems obvious to me. Prior to 2015 we did not have Net Neutrality. Can you tell the difference? I can’t.

In other words, it’s much ado about nothing.

Tom Liberman

Prison Camps on Coast Guard Ships

Posted on by

coast guardThe New York Times just published an article which detailed how low-level drug smugglers from South and Central America are being held on Coast Guard ships for months at a time under appalling conditions. There is the usual righteous outrage that we could do such horrible things to people but I’d like to focus on the damage it is doing to the young volunteers who serve and protect our country.

What is happening is relatively simple. 1986 a law was passed in the endless and useless War on Drugs called the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. It empowered the Coast Guard to search and seize drugs from any ship in International Waters, even if there was no evidence the drugs were intended for sale in the United States. A small amount of arrests were made on a yearly basis after that but everything changed in 2012 when it was decided to use this law to seize and arrest on a large scale.

These arrests are taking place far from the United States and there is no inexpensive way to bring the suspects to trial. Therefore, the prisoners are kept aboard Coast Guard ships for months at a time. The Coast Guard ships have no facilities so the prisoners are kept chained to the deck and fed at a barely subsistence level. The fellow in charge of all this was General John Kelly, now White House Chief of Staff. He strongly believes we need to expand the War on Drugs.

The men and women who serve aboard those Coast Guard vessels are largely idealistic and want to make the nation a safer and better place. What we are doing is wrecking them. No human can participate in chaining other humans to a deck for months at a time while feeding them little food and come away unscathed. What Kelly is doing is failing to make the United States a safer place and is destroying the moral and ethical compass of an entire generation, our people.

This is the natural extension of the horrors that occurred at Abu Ghraib and lays at the feet of Kelly. Kelly and his allies argue the prisoners are not being mistreated and the law is being followed but they completely forget the women and men who are carrying out their vile orders. These people, the best and brightest our nation has to offer, are learning we can and should treat others like animals. This is not a lesson easily unlearned. I can only imagine the nightmares being forced to do something like this would cause me and I’m a grown man.

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of our young Coast Guard volunteers are being ordered to participate in what can only be called immoral actions. They are being told by their superiors, supposedly morally sound officers, to engage in these actions, to watch as men are tortured. In these circumstances the vile among us rise while those who are good and decent must hide, quit, or simply go along because they see no other choice. What horror.

The long-term effect of these actions on the Coast Guard as a whole, on the men and women who issue the commands, and those tasked with carrying them out are incalculable. The people who are being forced to do these things will go on with their lives, they might join other branches of the military, they might become law enforcement officers, they might take roles in our government. They are forever damaged and will carry on with the lessons they are learning. That is a danger to us all.

Shame on you, Kelly and all the others involved in this ruination of the young men and women of the Coast Guard. Shame.

Tom Liberman

Does Government Need a Search Warrant for Cell Phone Location Records?

Posted on by

search warrantThere’s an interesting case before the Supreme Court involving law enforcement agencies gaining access to information about where you have been traveling without a search warrant. In essence, your cell phone knows where you are at all times. The question is if that information can be turned over without the normal protections provided by the Fourth Amendment.

The case in question involves a person who was found guilty of robbing a series of Radio Shack stores. Police obtained records of who knows how many thousands of people, without a search warrant, and correlated data to determine who was close to all the stores on all the dates of the robberies. Certainly, this aided in catching Timothy Carpenter but also gave law enforcement officials access to the traveling habits of tens of thousands of people who did not commit a crime.

No one is arguing if the police suspected Carpenter they could not obtain a search warrant to his cell phone records and find a correlation between his movements and that of the robberies. The question is if they can get everyone’s records, anytime, for any stated reason, and comb over them.

The danger of government being able to know your precise location at any time is fairly evident. What if a government official wanted to know if their spouse was cheating on them and with whom? What if you offended a government official and they wanted to learn if you were cheating on your spouse, or frequenting a casino, or who were you friends so they might question them on your potentially unsavory actions?

The possibilities are limitless and I think it’s ridiculous to assume everyone in government has your best interests at heart. There are vindictive and violent people in government who could and would use this information to hurt people.

Some people reason if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t worry about it. I could not disagree more. If I am not a suspect in a criminal investigation, if reasonable cause cannot be argued before a judge; where I go is none of the government’s business. The government should not have free and unfettered access to my purchases, my movements, or my possessions.

The Fourth Amendment exists for good reason and we must be careful about allowing exceptions.

Tom Liberman

Pedestrian Citations versus Pedestrian Safety

Posted on by

pedestrian citationI just watched an interesting video on YouTube about pedestrian citations. Basically, pedestrians are given tickets for various violations including jaywalking and a litany of other things. The idea behind the citations is they are issued for the protection of citizens. Not crossing at a crosswalk is potentially a dangerous activity.

While I’m certain you won’t be surprised blacks and Hispanics receive the majority of these pedestrian citations, that’s not really what I want to talk about today. It’s the government supposedly trying to protect us that bothers me. In reality they are simply financing themselves through citations. The reason I say this is because the studies show these tickets are often given in areas where pedestrians have little choice but to break the law.

In the case of Florida, where the video originated, they are often given on streets where there is no sidewalk to use and yet there are bus stops. People must get to the bus stop but they can’t get there without walking on the street, which is a violation. Many other instances are when people move from one side of the street to the other but not at a crosswalk.

When you examine the region, there are no crosswalks available for multiple blocks. The alternative being to walk three, four, or more blocks out of your way to cross the street. I don’t care how much of a law and order person you are, that’s a law no one is going to follow.

The reality is making the streets safer for pedestrians involves spending money on building better sidewalks, designating more crosswalks, and a variety of other things. If the government actually wanted to make us safer, that’s what they’d do. Citations for these sorts of silly things are merely an excuse to generate revenue for the city.

For example, in my state of Missouri I violate a pedestrian law on an almost daily basis by walking on the left half of a crosswalk. Code 300.385. I’m fairly certain every person reading this article has violated this law many times. Because this law is violated constantly it becomes rife for abuse. The officer can charge whomever she or he feels like charging and let anyone else go merrily on their way. This is the problem with many laws and why we see people of color getting the majority of such citations, although, again, that’s not my main problem here.

The problem is the law. Let’s take 300.385 as an example of a law which continues to exist largely because of its revenue generating potential. The government will tell us the law was written to cut down on inconvenience when crossing the street at a crosswalk. By keeping opposite flowing pedestrian traffic on different sides, it is a better system. I don’t disagree with the principle of the idea. It is a good strategy. It just shouldn’t be a law punishable by a fine.

If someone wants to cross on the opposite side and there is no, or little, oncoming pedestrian traffic; all is well. If, on the other hand, the crosswalk is filled with people going both directions and someone is swimming upstream they are generally given dirty looks and even forced to the other side. That’s enough punishment. We don’t need to take people’s money in order to get them to walk on the convenient side of the crosswalk. Are we going to have laws forcing people to wait before entering a mass transit vehicle thus allowing exiting people to go first?

It is against the law to change lanes without signaling. It is against the law to make a turn and switch from one lane to another while doing so. There is virtually no one in the nation who doesn’t break laws on a daily basis.

The question I’d like you to ask yourself is relatively simple. If law enforcement agents started to enforce these laws on people driving a Mercedes, a Lexus, a Tesla, a BMW, and other expensive cars; if law enforcement agents started enforcing jaywalking laws on people wearing expensive clothes; if law enforcement agents started citing politicians at the state capital for crossing on the wrong half of the crosswalk; how long before the laws would change?

These laws are a tool of oppression on those who cannot defend themselves and serve the sole purpose of financing government agents without making life any safer or better for citizens. That’s just plain wrong.

Tom Liberman

Solving Animal Abuse at Intensive Animal Farming Facilities

Posted on by

intensive animal farmingThere are two apparently diametrically opposed sides in the animal husbandry industry. Animal Rights Activists and owners and operators of Intensive Animal Farming Facilities. One of the positive takes I have about being a Libertarian and Objectivist is that I’m not ideologically tied to any particular side in an issue.

On one side are the activists who see the abuse of animals and feel an ethical obligation to do everything in their power to help the largely defenseless creatures. On the other are people trying to provide goods to paying customers, employ willing people, and make a profit while doing so. What we see are two groups of people doing all they can in court, on social media, and in various state legislatures to attack one another.

I, on the other hand, do not see the two groups as necessarily needing to fight one another for the minds of public opinion. I think there is a place for both sides and a happy middle ground. I understand getting the entire population of the world to turn to a plant-based diet is a hopeless endeavor. People will always want to eat meat and someone will provide this product. I am also truly disgusted when I see the videos animal rights activists’ post when they gain access to such farms.

If we take a Libertarian and Objectivist point of view, I think the inevitable conclusion is there will always be such farms but that animals should not be tortured and brutalized while they are living their short lives. When videos come out showing horrific abuse of animals the owners and operators of the facilities always express outrage but I find words to be largely meaningless. I want to see action.

That brings me to the point of this article. How can the owners and operators of Intensive Animal Farming Facilities and Animal Rights Activists work together in a pragmatic way to reach some reasonable solution? This is important. It must be remembered when the two sides attack one another this takes time, effort, and money. These things could be channeled into productive activities that make a difference.

The simplest solution is for Animal Rights Activists to purchase, install, monitor, and maintain cameras at various points in the facilities. If the owners of such farms truly are concerned for the welfare of their animals, as they express time and again, they will have no problem with such a system. It costs them nothing and ensures workers are being monitored for abuses to animals that certainly affect production.

It will also help the public make informed decisions about their purchases. If I can go online and watch how the animal is being treated at the farm before and during slaughter that helps me feel good about my purchase. If I know the animal is reasonably well-cared for and not being tortured, I am happy to spend my money on the product. I imagine that I’m not alone in this feeling. If I knew that an animal was horribly abused before getting to market, I would probably not make the purchase. This ripple effect causes those farmers who practice treating their animals with respect gain market share.

This changes the Intensive Animal Farming industry as a whole. If people are well-informed in their purchasing decisions and farmers who treat animals well are rewarded, then the farmers who have less healthy practices are driven from the business.

This is a desired result. It is good for the ethical farmers, it is good for the purchasing public, and contributes to the welfare of the animals themselves. I don’t think anyone would have an objection to this outcome except those who enjoy abusing animals. Let us not pretend that such people do not exist and are not attracted to jobs that allow them to carry out their perverse desires. They must be curtailed.

From my perspective, the important thing here is to try and work together to come up with solutions to problems rather than simply attacking one another. I find that ideological differences can be overcome when you are willing to examine practical solutions and work with each other. I also believe when you refuse to engage in such compromise you are setting yourself up for long-term disaster.

Neither the Intensive Animal Farming industry or the Animal Rights Activists can truly win this war alone. They need each other.

Tom Liberman

Ending the Lychee Dog Meat Festival

Posted on by

lychee dog meat festivalOne of my Facebook acquaintances who is deeply passionate about animal rights recently posted about the Lychee Dog Meat festival in China. I think it’s fairly reasonable to suggest that most of us in the western world are not particularly comfortable with eating canines. What can be done about it? What is the best way to stop such behavior? This question speaks to my Libertarian ideology.

I recently wrote several blogs about the horse meat industry and I think the comparison is reasonable. When horse lovers lobbied Congress sufficiently, laws were passed that defunded the inspection of horse slaughter houses. Because it is not legal to slaughter animals in the United States without such inspections, the industry was eliminated. Yet, the practice continues.

The efforts of people like my friend on Facebook are used to put pressure on China to outlaw the Lychee festival. In China manipulative legislative runarounds like that which was done with the horse meat industry are unnecessary. They do not live in a free society. If the government wants to prevent a particular activity, they simply issue a ban. There is no Constitution to maneuver around. If my friend and her allies can put enough pressure on China to outlaw the festival, it will happen, but will it work?

In China the government position is that the Chinese people do not hold dogs in the same regard as companions as do Westerners. They find our slaughter of cows and chickens to be far more egregious than the single festival in which a few thousand dogs die. In this, I believe they are correct. More cows and chickens are slaughtered in a single day than die in the yearly festival.

Opponents of the festival argue the dogs die in unsupervised, and horrific fashion. That many of the animals are stolen from their owners. I have no way of knowing if this is true or not but it certainly seems plausible.

Now we get down to the reality of this world. The Chinese people enjoy the meat of dogs. The people of the United States largely find such slaughter abhorrent.

Let’s imagine for a moment that the Chinese government comes around the way of thinking of my friend. They ban the slaughter of dogs, they outlaw the Lychee festival. Do we think that such will prevent dogs from being slaughtered and eaten? The answer is obviously no. As long as Chinese people want to eat dogs, dogs will be eaten. Horses are still slaughtered and eaten in the United States, it is just done via a black market. The price increases, money is delivered into the hands of criminals. The ban is largely ineffective.

It seems obvious to me such would be the case in China. The Chinese government might even give lip service to such a ban but would not bother to enforce it. This is the problem with relying on government to solve problems. Sure, they can pass laws, they can make heroin illegal, they can make speeding illegal, they can outlaw certain variety of firearms, but these laws never stop human behavior. If people want to consume drugs, to drive quickly, to purchase firearms; they will continue to do so.

We only give ourselves the illusion of safety and harmony with such laws. In reality the behavior continues largely unabated or even enhanced by the lure of danger.

What is to be done? My friend is passionate, she is caring, she strongly believes in the rights of animals. I applaud and admire her dedication and think it is people like her who will eventually bring about change, if change is to come. She should continue to make her opinion known, convince one person at a time. It is only when people no longer want to consume dogs, or horses, that the Lychee festival will end. The government is helpless and hopeless.

Do not rely on government to legislate. Convince people, convince the individual. The individual has the power. If you cannot convince the people, then you need to make a better argument.

Tom Liberman

The Story of Mike Mariana and Trials of Osiris might make you a Libertarian

Posted on by

mike marianaYou probably haven’t heard of a video game called Destiny, an excellent player of the game named DrLupo, or a dedicated but average skilled player named Mike Mariana who recently died. That’s too bad. One of the main concepts of Libertarianism is people of like interests gathering and doing what they enjoy without interference. The story I’m about to tell you is what I imagine the world would be if we were all Libertarians.

Mariana developed cancer a few years back and between the disease and chemotherapy his ability to physically interact with the world was greatly diminished. He started playing the computer game Destiny. As the cancer grew worse it was one of the few games he could play and he and a group of online friends spent many hours enjoying themselves in battle.

In Destiny there is a series of tasks called the Trials of Osiris. If a team is able to pass this trial they can visit a place called The Lighthouse. Mariana’s friends decided to dedicate themselves to helping him get there. Sadly, their skills just weren’t up to the task and Mariana was growing ever weaker from the spreading cancer.

They decided to ask a Twitch.tv Destiny streamer who uses the name DrLupo to help. DrLupo is a Destiny expert and agreed to help Mariana. In the game you play in teams of three so DrLupo gathered one of his friends and joined up with Mike to take on the Trials of Osiris. DrLupo did it as part of a charitable 24 hours stream hoping to raise $10,000 for the Make-a-Wish foundation. I do not think I need spell it out. Mariana got to play with one of his heroes, he won the right to visit The Lighthouse, much money was raised, Twitch.tv chipped in by putting the final run on the front page of their site, and there was much rejoicing.

Certainly, a feel-good story but I think more than that. The internet gives us an opportunity to gather with like-minded friends and do things we enjoy in a way not possible throughout human history. Our geographic location is irrelevant, our race is not a factor, our religion is of no consequence, our political affiliation makes no difference, our gender is inconsequential. All the things that divided people throughout recorded history are falling by the wayside.

Not to say that the institutions under attack are not fighting back. People use religious, racial, gender, and political difference in an attempt to lure us into their hate-filled lives. They try to pit us against each other. They try to convince us that hatred, persecution, and rage are the paths to happiness. I’m here to tell you the way to a happy life is to spend it doing things you enjoy with those of similar interests.

The way to self-loathing and unhappiness is to spend your time railing against those who do thing you don’t like, who profess political ideas with which you disagree, or who worship or do not worship the same way as you.

Do you spend your time on Social Media and in real life posting diatribes against those you think are doing something wrong? Trying to ruin the lives of those who act in ways that offend you? This is not the way to happiness. You might think it is but you are destroying yourself in such pursuits. You are wasting your life.

I’m not going to tell you to stop such behavior. If you want to spend your life trying to hurt other people, that’s your business. I’m suggesting you be more like Mariana. Spend your time doing the things you love, because you’re going to be dead soon enough.

Tom Liberman

Bob McNair was the Apology a Lie?

Posted on by

Bob McNairThe owner of the Houston Texans, Bob McNair, recently made a comment for which he later apologized. A National Football League player named Richard Sherman thinks the original statement was a true indication of the feelings McNair has and that the apology is merely pretend. What I’m going to discuss is not the nature of the comment itself but the reality of Sherman’s analysis.

To get you up to speed, there is an ongoing issue in the NFL in which players are kneeling or otherwise protesting during the playing of the national anthem. The owners largely do not like this. McNair was quoted as saying something along the lines of: We cannot let the prisoners run the asylum. This equates the players in the NFL to incarcerated people. McNair was apparently confronted shortly after making the statement and he apologized.

Sherman believes McNair truly meant the statement, that he associates the players with inmates. People who should have no say as to how the team is managed. Sherman believes the apology a lie motivated by politically correctness.

Sherman believes McNair is not alone in his opinion. Sherman thinks other NFL owners feel the same way, players are to be used as best as possible and discarded when their productive years are behind them. Sherman also believes not all owners think like this. He thinks the owner of his team, Paul Allen, does not think this way about his players.

We cannot know for certain if McNair’s original statement is his true opinion or not but I think it’s an interesting question. Did McNair mean it when he compared NFL players to prisoners in an institution? Is he bowing to business expediency and political correctness by pretending to apologize?

I think Sherman’s opinion is legitimate. I think there is quite a good chance McNair truly believed what he said and, upon reflection, realized it was a terrible thing to say. Or perhaps McNair is simply pretending to apologize. That he, in his heart, believes what he original said. Again, we have no way of knowing the answer to this question, only McNair can tell us.

Sherman goes on to make an incredibly interesting point. He says he would rather McNair tell the truth, even if it is antithetical to Sherman’s own beliefs. Sherman would rather know the honest opinion of McNair and thereafter avoid him.

Let’s imagine I know someone whose opinions on a subject are deeply offensive to me. Would I rather they pretend not to have those opinions when around me, or would I prefer if they told me exactly what they were thinking? I find myself in complete agreement with Sherman. If you have an opinion, state it. If I don’t like it, well, it’s up to me to decide if I want to be around you in the future. Sure, when you make a statement I don’t like, I can speak up. Trust me, I do. If you refuse to back down then we are at an impasse. The ball is in my court. I can choose to associate with you in the future or I can choose to avoid events at which we might meet. If we do meet, I can choose to circumvent topics of conversation where I know we conflict and focus on areas where we might agree.

I do not disagree with anyone about all things nor do I agree completely with anyone on all subjects. I, like Sherman, would prefer to know you true opinions. Then I can make judgments and take actions that I deem appropriate.

My opinions are in my blogs and my novels for all to see. I’m an Atheist. I’m a Libertarian. I don’t suffer fools lightly. If that offends you, and there are many who are offended, then the ball is in your court. You can choose to engage me or avoid me. You can choose not to be friends with me on Facebook so you don’t have to see my thoughts on various topics. That’s cool. I respect that.

I think that’s Sherman’s point here. He wants McNair to be honest. If they disagree, so be it. What he doesn’t like is saying one thing while behind the scenes doing something else entirely. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t apologize if you say something and upon further examination realize it was truly awful. You are allowed to change your opinion. I certainly hope McNair is truly sorry for what he said, that he realizes the condescending nature of his statement. Then the apology is warranted and should be accepted.

I’m sure Sherman, and others, will be watching McNair more closely in the future. Will his actions down the road support his original statement or the apology? That’s the true test. We can say anything we want. It’s our actions that prove the integrity of our words.

Tom Liberman

Should We Tax Sugar to Reduce Obesity?

Posted on by
Tax Sugar

A new study suggests taxing sugar is a far better way to control the enormous cost associated with unhealthy citizens of the United States than product specific taxes. I have no problem with the conclusion of the study, it’s most likely correct even though it is based on simple economic models rather than actual implementations. I do, however, have a problem with using taxes to control the behavior of citizens.

Let’s assume it is completely accurate to forecast an obesity drop and a correlating reduction in the diseases that come from being overweight; heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, and others. If this sugar tax was put into place we could expect to see a substantial savings in healthcare costs associated with the treatment of all those disease. We’d see fewer missed workdays. There are any number of societal benefits to a healthy population, this cannot be denied. I’m all for these results if not the methods.

Arguments Against

We know for a fact the producers of sugary drinks will see the cost of their products rise. This is the desired outcome. When the price rises, people stop purchasing. Well, at least some people. The reality is many people continue to drink such beverages but now have less money to spend on other things, perhaps a new cellular phone or deck for their house. Each dollar we take out of consumer’s pockets must be accounted for on the scale. Thus, the effect on many industries is negative, not just the sugary drink providers.

Arguments For

What are some of the arguments against such taxes? There are certainly undesirable impacts on the sugary drink industry but these negatives are presumably offset by gains in other places. If people move away from sugary drinks they will move to something else. Perhaps they will purchase more tea or water. So, not a bad thing you might say. I’d say, yes, very bad thing. The industries so benefiting have a competitive advantage against the sugary drink companies brought on by government intervention, capitalism has been subverted by crony capitalism. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the attempts to tax soda and the funding for studies like the one I referenced earlier were not coming from such industries. When the government becomes involved in which company succeeds and which company fails; then such businesses are forced to attempt to corrupt government as a means of survival.

The idea of taxes in general is to support government programs. We pay a gasoline tax largely to fund road related services. In this case there is no correlating service. We’re merely doing it to try and get people to behave in a way the government thinks best. This deeply offends my Libertarian ideology.

When the Government Gets Involved

I think it is important to consider the government’s role in milk and cheese production. Our tax dollars go to these endeavors including advertising campaigns. The consumption of such food is not necessarily healthy. If we trust the government to promote or demonize one thing, we cannot be upset when they do so for many different things. This is my biggest problem with a sugar tax. By empowering the government to tax simply to engineer a particularly desired behavior, we essentially give them carte blanche to promote any such behavior.

I do not think it takes a leap of logic to understand that unscrupulous business owners will immediately look to subvert this supposed altruistic process. They will immediately, let’s be honest, they are already, attempting to get government to work for their industries.

Even when the government is right, sugar filled drinks and food contribute to obesity and we should probably be eating and drinking less; we cannot allow it to act as an agent for or against a particular industry. The more government has the ability to shape our purchasing habits, the more it will become corrupted by industry.

In essence, the government will simply become a corrupt agent of particularly industries. This is not its intended role. Sadly, I’m of the opinion we are well on our way to such a state of affairs. It does not bode well.

Tom Liberman

Epic Games Suing Stream Snipers for Cheating at Fortnite Battle Royale

Posted on by

fortniteThere is an interesting situation in the video game world in that a company called Epic Games is suing players of their game, Fortnite Battle Royale, for cheating. What’s that you say, video games and the law colliding? Have I died and fallen into the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It’s time for a Happy Dance and a blog.

A website called Twitch.tv allows players of video games to stream their efforts for a live audience. One of my favorite streamers, Sacriel, plays the game in question. It is what is called a Survival game with cooperative elements. This means one player or a team of players roam the world finding weapons and battling other players or teams of players.

A player like Sacriel joins a particular instance of the game. This lasts until there is only one player or team left on that particular instance, at which point another game begins. Cheaters watch the most popular streamers and join the same game, this is called Stream Sniping. The cheaters then attempt to defeat the streamer and often use against the rules code supplements to make themselves virtually invulnerable. This is the cheating aspect of the situation. Epic Games bans such cheaters when they spot them but the Stream Snipers generally create a new account fairly quickly. In this case one of the people being sued created at least nine other accounts after being banned.

In the legal system, in order to sue someone successfully you generally have to prove damages. So, you might well ask, how is cheating damaging Epic Games? It’s just a few players being killed and they can just start up another game, right? Not to my way of thinking although we will have to wait until the courts weigh in on the matter.

One of the interesting realities of people using platforms like Twitch.tv to stream games is the revenue thus generated. When an engaging and technically skilled player like Sacriel plays a game like Fortnite Battle Royal, the game gets enormous promotion. When gamers see Sacriel enjoying himself immensely they too want to play the game and make the purchase. They even get an opportunity to test their skills against such streamers which is a big selling point. There is quite clearly direct correlation to game sales and popular streamers.

When Stream Snipers become prevalent, top streamers like Sacriel simply get fed up and quit the game. There isn’t much point in playing whenever you start a new game an invincible opponent arrives and kills you. It’s not fun for the streamer and it is not enjoyable for the audience to watch. Therefore, the streamer stops playing which, in turn, directly affects game sales.

As a Libertarian I’m also quite happy with the way this has played out. Epic Games attempted to simply ban such cheaters but when they were unable to effectively implement this tactic they were forced into legal remedies. I always appreciate trying to solve the problem without resorting to legal or law enforcement agencies, but there comes a time when reason is not an effective tool.

I think Epic Games has a case and I’m quite interested to see how this all plays out in court. I’m not of the opinion the Stream Snipers should be put in prison but hit her or his wallet and I think you have effectively curtailed the practice, and that’s a good thing.

Tom Liberman

Taylor Winston and the Case for Relative Morality

Posted on by

taylor winstonAs an Atheist, one of the things I talk about frequently is the relative nature of ethics. My religious friends believe their morality is handed down from god to them. I argue that morality is not fixed by any being, be it god or the government, but is subject to interpretation. This reasoning usually does not find purchase with such friends. I hope the case of Taylor Winston and stealing might make the point clearer.

Stealing is wrong or stealing is usually wrong. The former statement is an absolute statement of morality and is found pretty much verbatim in the bible. Thou Shall Not Steal. There are no caveats. This is the argument made by my religious friends. The second statement is not so stringent. Stealing is generally wrong but it circumstantially could be the right thing to do. This is the argument often made by Atheists.

I think the case of Winston might resonate with my religious friends. He was attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas. He was among the crowd, along with friends, when the gunfire began to rain down upon them. He managed to escape over some fencing while helping others do the same. Then, seeing the many wounded, he went to the parking lot and found a vehicle with keys. He illegally entered the vehicle, started it, and drove it to the hospital with victims of the attack. He then returned and ferried more people in the stolen truck.

The public reaction to Winston and his actions pretty much proves the point of relative morality. If stealing is wrong without question, if we follow the word of god’s morality; there can be no question Winston was in direct violation of the 7th or 8th commandment, depending on the version. Winston should suffer whatever punishment a society based on religion should choose to enforce, perhaps chopping his hands off.

My question for anyone reading this blog post is what did you first think about the story of Winston and the truck stealing? What was your immediate and instant reaction? I’d be enormously surprised if anyone thought Winston committed an immoral act, including the owner of the truck.

I suppose some argument can be made that he simply borrowed the truck but the reality is Winston saw a situation in which he needed something that did not belong to him and took it. It’s that simple. In this particular case he did the ethical thing, the right thing. Not only should he not be punished but he should be rewarded.

This is one of many reasons I’m an Atheist. Please feel free to join me.

Tom Liberman

A Real Apology

Posted on by

apologyI was thinking about the idea of an apology. You say or do something you regret. You say you’re sorry. The natural reaction of the person or people you’ve offended or angered is to accept the apology. It is almost as if some part, if not all, of the original transgression never happened. But what is an apology? Just words. I’m beginning to become skeptical about accepting those words, they are merely a way for the person giving the apology to feel better. I’ve decided I don’t want apologies anymore, I want to see a change in your behavior. That’s a real apology. If that’s beyond you, fine. Let’s both move on.

I’m sure this is coming across as rather cruel and heartless and perhaps it is. It’s just that I often see people giving what appears to be heartfelt apologies for particular misbehaviors and then going right back to repeating the offending behavior in exactly the same fashion.

I’m sometimes willing to believe the apology is sincere. The person does feel bad about what she or he did. But the apology is nothing more than a symptom masking panacea. The offending person is fixed and can go on about their life without further worry, until they do it again. It’s an endless cycle of misbehavior and apology. There is no effort to fix the underlying problem, or perhaps there is an attempt but it ends in failure. The apology is a central part of the ongoing problem.

It seems to me, quite frequently the words are completely phony. The person is only apologizing because the behavior generated unfavorable results. The person isn’t really sorry at all. They are sorry about the consequences but they acted exactly in the fashion they desired. The only thing they’d change about the incident that requires an apology is the resulting upset.

However, if the person actually changes their behavior over the course of the next several years, that would seem to me to be a real apology. I’m sorry I did something and I recognize what I did was wrong. Every time I’m in a situation in which I could repeat the behavior, I react differently. That’s an apology I can get behind.

So, there you have it. If you offend me and aren’t sorry. That’s cool. Tell me you’re not sorry and I’ll deal with it. If you are sorry, change your behavior. If I offend you, tell me about it and I’ll try my best to change my behavior if I feel I was in the wrong. Apologies aren’t worthy of accepting or rejecting.

Sometimes I wonder why I don’t have a lot of friends, then I remember!

Have a wonderful day.

Tom Liberman

The Case Against Sanctions

Posted on by

sanctionsWhen the leaders of a nation decide they want to act in a way the United States perceives as detrimental, the general solution is economic sanctions. The idea being that such sanctions hurt the offending nation and politicians eventually give up on their policies. What I’d like to discuss today is what really happens when we implement economic sanctions on another nation.

One of the main arguments against such sanctions is the leaders of the nation don’t suffer any impact but the average person in said country is economically disadvantaged. The argument for sanctions hopes the people will blame their government for lack of goods. Unfortunately, I think it is much more common to blame the nation imposing the sanctions. It drives a country deeper into behavior we dislike. However, this objection is the least of my troubles with sanctions.

One of the biggest problems with sanctions is that, like a sword, they cut both ways. When we limit trade with a foreign nation we are now preventing companies within the United States from making a profit by selling to willing buyers. As an example, I have a number of family members and friends who work for Boeing and they are hurt by the fact their employer cannot sell goods to quite a few countries in the world. For many companies, this is certainly the difference between growth and hiring and shrinkage and layoffs. There is no question all the economic sanctions we are currently prosecuting badly hurt industry in the United States. How much business could be, and should be, done with Cuba?

Another enormous problem is there is largely a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy when it comes to sanctions. When we ban selling or purchasing a product from a particular nation it hardly stops such activity. It simply pushes it underground. Many of the companies and nations who supposedly support such sanctions actively work around them in a variety of ways, chief among them is simply maneuvering and repackaging product.

Basically, if we aren’t allowed to sell something to a country, that product is shipped to a third-party nation that does trade with the proscribed country and the commodity is simply packaged in a container to disguise its point of origin. And, of course, the reverse happens in purchasing such goods. The offending country ships things to a willing nation who then repackages and sells back to the United States.

The second problem leads to the third, which is the creation of a black market where criminals gain huge profits at the expense of regular consumers. The moving of these goods must be done by extralegal sources or officials who are taking bribes to perform the necessary maneuvering. Now we are empowering criminals and corrupting officials. The product should be shipping at a certain cost but the price goes up because of the sanctions. Thus, when you purchase a product that might somewhere on the supply chain pass through the country with sanctions being imposed against it, you pay an increased price.

Likewise, the illegal maneuvering to avoid sanctions leads us to the fourth problem: Enforcement. Thousands of people and billions of dollars are spent trying to prevent nations and companies from maneuvering their goods in an attempt to avoid sanctions. We have agents at ports around the world inspecting packages and trying to make sure they actually come from the country of origin the packaging claims. This costs taxpayer directly, as opposed to the more indirect cost of higher prices.

Highly trained law enforcement officials spend their days and nights trying to figure out how nations and corporations are avoiding the sanctions when they could well be doing something more useful. The amount of time and money spent trying to enforce sanctions is astronomical.

The final point of my argument against sanction is they simply do not work. The nation in question continues functioning in a fairly normal way. They continue to sell their goods to willing buyers; either nations that have not imposed sanctions or through a black market.

Sanctions apparently do no good whatsoever, cost us huge amounts of money, waste the time of highly trained professionals who could be doing something else, generally harm the average person of the offending nation thus cementing their hatred of the United States, corrupt officials, funnel money to criminals, and cause an increase in the price of the goods you purchase. Yay!

Let’s take a quick moment to look at the results if we continued to trade with nations who we consider our enemies. Our companies make a profit, the people of those nations look at us more favorably, we pay lower prices, and there is an opportunity to open lines of dialog to bring about the change we are attempting to create through sanctions.

It’s a natural reaction to want to punish nations we think are behaving poorly but a better strategy is to engage. Better for everyone.

I ask for all sanctions, to all countries, be dropped immediately.

Tom Liberman

Martha Stewart and her Unjust Conviction

Posted on by

martha stewartI’ve been reading a number stories about Martha Stewart and her feelings about being imprisoned in 2004 for conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements in regards to the sale of ImClone Systems stocks. She felt it was a horrible experience and she learned nothing from it.

I think there are a number of things to take from Stewart’s opinion on this subject not the least of which is that she was convicted in what most people would regard as questionable fashion and I would classify as grossly unjust. I find her words about her imprisonment resonate strongly with me. She was not made stronger for her stay in jail, she learned nothing, she did not become a better person. It was horrible in every regard. This is an indictment of our prison system.

First, I’d like to talk about her conviction. She sold some stock shortly before it went down by 16% and avoided about $50,000 in losses. This may seem like a lot to you and me but to a woman of her means, it is a fairly trivial amount. Her broker supposedly was informed by an insider that a drug the company was promoting failed to gain approval. Stewart claimed there was a standard order to sell when it reached a certain price, $60, and had documentation that such an order existed.

An ink expert from the Secret Service testified the ink on the order for the ImClone sale was different than other ink on the document. He lied. He hadn’t even examined the document. Another worker examined it and it was clear she had a grudge against Stewart. The case of securities fraud against Stewart was so flimsy the judge threw it out of court. But, Stewart insisted the order for sale at $60 was real and she was convicted on charges related to these statements. This despite the fact the person who claimed it was different ink was lying. She was not convicted of securities fraud. The civil case was eventually settled with Stewart paying the government the equivalent of triple damages although she maintained her innocence.

So, off she went to a minimum-security prison. Here’s where her comments really caught my eye. She was asked if the sentence and imprisonment made her stronger. If the adversity was essentially good for her. This question reflects what we’d like prison to be. A place where inmates reflect upon their misdeeds and emerge the better for it. No, said Stewart. It was not a learning experience. It did not make her stronger. It was horrible. It was only her own strength of character that allowed her to endure. This confirms my opinion that prison is not making better people but is largely making better criminals. It is not turning criminals into good citizens but conversely, turning good citizens into criminals.

This assessment is coming from an undeniably strong woman who was sent into what is largely considered the least penal sort of prison. Imagine men and women of lesser character getting sent to far worse places. We turn a young person who perhaps robbed a store, got caught with some small amount of drugs, or perhaps got into a drunken fight into a hardened criminal by sending them to our failed jails.

If the goal is to have a better society, to have better people, then we must listen to what Stewart has to say. If we merely want to punish people and ensure they are more likely to commit crimes after their release, then we can safely ignore Stewart’s advice. It’s important to note that Stewart is not merely answering a question, she is unleashing a stinging and startlingly accurate indictment of our entire system. I’m not surprised, she is a woman of tremendous strength.

If you choose to ignore her, do so at your own peril. More and better criminals is not a recipe for a successful society.

Tom Liberman

The Underlying Weakness of Anthem Anger

Posted on by

anthem angerThere is an interesting phenomenon going on surrounding the behavior of people during the playing of the national anthem. I don’t want to talk about the reason behind the kneeling but the reaction to the protests.

There are largely two categories of offense in these situations. Either you are affected or you are not. Protestors can act in a way that directly or indirectly affects me, or can perform it in a manner that has no impact on my life. The national anthem protests fall into the latter category. Blocking traffic would be the former. Your reaction to events that don’t affect you is an insight into your character.

The stronger you are as a person the less you should react to affronts that don’t affect you. If you are secure in your patriotism, why would you feel the need to force someone else into an act you deem patriotic? It is your own insecurities that rouse your ire, much more than the protest.

Biblically, Jesus used the idea of love to demonstrate this principle. If you love yourself, you love everyone else. Their feelings toward you are irrelevant, if they hate you that is too bad but it doesn’t change your opinion of them. It is only when you have feelings of doubt and insecurity in yourself that you worry what other people are thinking. Buddha and enlightenment is another example of this principle. The more secure you are in your own opinions, the less you feel it necessary to make others conform to those particular standards.

I’m certainly not criticizing anyone for standing during the national anthem but I do find their rage and urge to punish anyone who does not to be an underlying weakness of character, not a strength. If you really believed in your patriotic stance, you wouldn’t need to coerce others through force, economic or social, to conform to the ideologies you hold dear. You would simply smile and be comfortable in your own behavior. Those who are secure don’t need to be constantly reinforced by others. Those who are weak, who are insecure, require such reassurances.

I’m also not suggesting that such strength is easy to acquire and to demonstrate consistently. I think the ideals proposed by stories of Jesus and Buddha are essentially unobtainable, but still well worth pursuing. Everyone gets a sense of ease from being in a group of like-minded people. It is simply human nature to enjoy such comradery. When I am in a large group of people who share my ideology, I am reassured that I myself must be correct, this is a false comfort. Their agreement, or disagreement, with me has nothing to do with my own opinion.

I don’t hold myself up as a shining example of strength or perfection, but I also feel secure enough in my own beliefs that I don’t attempt to forcefully make people do as I do. I’m a Libertarian and an Atheist but I’m not offended by Democrats or Christians. I make my points as honestly as I can and I leave the decision up to you. If you choose to believe or behave differently than me, so be it. Best of luck to you. This is strength of character.

Not that I’m telling you how to act. That’s your decision, I am suggesting you look at your behavior with an eye toward critical thinking. Trying to force people into conforming to your way of doing things is a sign of tremendous weakness and insecurity, not power.

Tom Liberman

The Right to Peaceably Assemble makes us not North Korea

Posted on by

Constitution of United StatesCongress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble …. That particular part of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been buzzing around my head for the last few days. Likely because of all the people marching up and down in my neighborhood, blocking traffic, smashing windows, and generally making a nuisance of themselves.

As I peruse the delightful and polite discourse that flies across the wall of my Facebook feed much like poop flies gently through the air in a full blown, alcohol fueled, chimpanzee brawl, I’m forced to consider why it is we are allowed to assemble and protest what we perceive as wrongs perpetuated by the government. Why did the Founding Fathers include the aforementioned language in the Constitution?

The answer is quite simple. It’s so we don’t end up like North Korea. There is only one effective way to prevent people from assembling to air their grievances; arrest them for doing so. Arrest anyone that doesn’t like the way the government is doing business. Arrest them for stepping one foot off the sidewalk. Arrest them for marching in the street and blocking traffic. Arrest them and throw them in jail for breaking a window. That’s certainly the tenor of much of what I read from those who don’t like the protestors or their cause. This certainly seems to be the attitude of a lot of people in this country.

This path is frightfully dangerous for two reasons. The first reason is that people who feel they have no voice, people who cannot assemble and cause inconvenience, people who think they have no recourse to their complaints are much more likely to become violent. They will attack and kill police officers instead of marching in the streets. I don’t have to argue this point; the evidence is stark and mounting. Police will become afraid of the people and start shooting them at the slightest provocation. Again, I feel no need to support this point. Look around. It is manifestly happening.

The second thing that can happen is that we simply arrest everyone who dares speak out against the government. At that point, the United States will no longer exist in a way the Founding Fathers imagined. We are no longer a nation of laws when we can throw out those parts of the Constitution that cause us inconvenience. We are no longer free.

Don’t get me wrong. I hate seeing broken windows in establishments I frequent. I hate waiting in my car for a long line of protestors to clear the intersection. I might well sympathize with their cause but such behavior makes me less likely to look upon such protestors kindly. Still, I quite clearly understand to prevent them from doing so is a grave danger to this country and to my personal safety.

Terrorism is the child of repression. It was born in the most oppressive nations in the world and thrives when people try to violently destroy it. Where people have nonviolent means to address their government, terrorism has a hard time taking hold.

When we do not allow people to assemble and cause inconvenience we beget violence and rage. When we say arrest them all, we sign the death warrant of our nation.

You may not like the protestors. You may not agree with the protestors. You might find their methods troublesome and inconvenient, but trust me when I say you’ll like the alternative far less.

If protestors plan their marches to coincide with rush and happy hour to make our lives more inconvenient; we must resist the urge to call out law enforcement with riot gear and weapons. We must let them march to wherever they want to go. We must allow them to march where it causes problems because if we don’t, we take away their hope for progress. And people without hope do horrible things.

That’s why the Founding Fathers expressly gave us that particular freedom. I concur with their judgment.

Tom Liberman

Pay Frank Giaccio for Mowing the Lawn

Posted on by

Frank GiaccioThere’s a feel-good story making the rounds about a fellow named Frank Giaccio who wanted to mow the White House lawn. There is a lot of good in the story but there is one small thing that bothers my Libertarian sensibilities.

Giaccio mows local lawns in the Washington D.C. area and contacted the White House about his desire to perform the service for them. Someone read the letter and invited the young, he’s eleven-years-old, man out to do the job. He was loaned a mower by the National Parks Service and went to work.

I applaud Giaccio for his entrepreneurial spirit and his eye toward publicity. I congratulate the White House and the Parks Service for setting up the event. The young man got a personal visit with the president. All this is great. However, what he didn’t get was paid.

I understand the publicity about the event was worth more to Giacco than any small remuneration, but I’m telling you if I had been president, I would have insisted on paying his normal fee. That’s the message I think is missing in all of this. I’m reminded of the events of Atlas Shrugged when Dagny Taggart and Jon Galt go sightseeing in The Valley. They rent a car from a friend. It’s a small but important moment in the long novel. They don’t borrow the car, they rent it. When services are rendered, payment should be given. If you do something for someone, even a friend, they should pay you for your efforts.

This is the heart of capitalism.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think this is some major transgression by the White House, the Parks Service, or even young Giaccio. I’m not triggered. I just think it would have been a good lesson to insist on paying the lad. He did the job, pay him.

Tom Liberman

In My World Jason Stockley has a Job and Anthony Lamar Smith is Alive

Posted on by

st. louis stockley protestsThere’s bit of a hubbub going on here in my hometown and right down my own street in regards to the fact that former police officer Jason Stockley shot and killed suspected drug dealer Anthony Lamar Smith.

There’s a lot of people talking about various things in the news and up and down my social media platforms. My conservative friends rail against protestors who broke windows. My liberal friends argue against the verdict in the case. Both sides assert angrily, and often with threats of violence, their moral superiority. I think there are interesting and pertinent arguments to be made from both sides but I’m going to take this moment to interject my Libertarian perspective. I think it’s something people on both sides of this issue should take into account, not that I would ever force them to do so.

In a Libertarian world, adults are allowed to put whatever chemicals into their body they want. There are no laws against certain kinds of drugs. Heroin is just as legal as Oxycontin. It can be purchased at the local pharmacy for an extremely modest amount of money. Stockley is still working as a police officer and has never been tried for a crime. Anthony Lamar Smith is alive and well. There are no windows broken in the Central West End or University City, one a place where I currently reside and the other my old home. Traffic is flowing normally without disruption in downtown St. Louis. That’s my world. Sadly, it’s not the world we live in.

It’s important to understand that heroin and prescription opioids are, in fact, pretty much the same thing. Law Enforcement Officers are busy risking their lives in order to control the competitors of the pharmaceutical market, not for the safety of the community. The laws against drugs are inarguably making our communities less safe, they are making life more dangerous for everyone. They are funneling huge amounts of money into the hands of violent criminals.

To everyone out there protesting either in physical form or via social media, arguing back and forth with friends and family, saying horribly insulting and threatening things to those on the other side, filled with self-righteous certainty; ask yourself this question: Am I partially responsible for what has happened?

Do you unconditionally support the War on Drugs? Do you support Law Enforcement Officers under almost every circumstance? Do you oppose such officials almost always? Do you hurl nasty and violent insults at those on the opposing side? Do you prefer to pat yourself on the back assuring yourself of your moral superiority rather than looking into real solutions? If you answer yes, you are part of the problem.

There is a simple solution. End the War on Drugs. It’s a War on Us.

Tom Liberman