Tag Archives: law

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

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 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

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

 

Biblical Morality Attacked in Jordan

Posted on by

moralityMany people are cheering the government of Jordan for removing a clause in their legal code by which a rapist is exonerated of their crime if they marry the victim. I, on the other hand, find this attack on biblical morality an affront to religious freedom.

The bible is quite clear on this subject. Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear about Religious Freedom. The government shall pass no law that infringes on my right to practice religion freely. In the Bible, it is stated quite clearly that if I choose to rape a woman who is not engaged or married, my punishment is that I must pay fifty bucks to her father and marry her. That seems like plenty of punishment to me. I mean, maybe I just wanted to rape her because she was wearing really hot clothes and showing a bit of ankle. A man has his needs. Now I’ve got to marry the ho and I’m not even allowed to divorce her!

Before this affront to my religious freedom I would have applauded Jordan for applying biblical morality to their legal code and only wish the United States, whose own legal code is clearly and completely based on the bible, do the same. I mean, if I want to beat my slaves and they don’t die within a day or two, that’s totally my right. If I kill a dude who has the nerve to say God Damn It and thus violate the Third Commandment, I’m merely following biblical morality. It’s clear to me punishment for such a crime should be death, I mean, it’s third on the list of commandments and therefore of greater concern than murder.

Jordan has caved to the pressure of secularists who somehow think that men can come up with morality that is more just than that provided by an all-knowing, all-powerful God. If God says a rapist must marry the victim then that’s the way it should be, not to mention the $50 bucks!

Now, I know some namby-pamby, cry-babies are going to say, hey, what about the woman who was raped? Maybe she doesn’t want to marry her rapist. Give me a break, she’s soiled property now. Nobody is going to marry that ho after I raped her. I’m far and away the best options she’s got. I’m doing her a favor.

I don’t understand how people can possibly imagine the word of god has less weight than any legal remedy created by men. I mean, it is men who create the legal code. Women exist merely to glorify me and tell me how great I am. That’s what a wife should be doing, serving her man, by that I mean the fellow she is lucky enough to marry after he rapes her.

Secularists can suck it! Don’t cave my Jordanian brothers! Reinstate the Rape Clause because that’s what God says.

Tom Liberman

Chris Soules and Venus Williams

Posted on by

Chris Soules Venus Williams
There were two car accidents recently in which a person died. One of the accidents was caused by a white man, Chris Soules, with a strong belief in Jesus as his savior who also happens to live in rural Iowa. The other was caused by a black woman, Venus Williams. She doesn’t speak of her religion and lives in an urban environment. I find the general tenor of the comments on the two stories to be incredibly telling. First let’s look at the accidents.

Soules purchased liquor at a store. He smashed into the back of a tractor sending it into the ditch and killing the driver. Soules then reported the accident, waited for paramedics to arrive, but then fled the scene before police arrived. He went home and when officers came to question him he refused to come out for five hours. Open liquor containers were found in his car.

Venus Williams attempted to make a right turn but traffic prevented her from moving forward. She was stuck in the middle of the intersection, which is her fault. She shouldn’t have made the turn without it being clear. Another car didn’t notice and ran into her vehicle from the side. One of the passengers was an elderly man who was taken to the hospital where he eventually died two weeks later.

Now that you know the circumstances of the two accidents can you guess the general thoughts in the comments sections? Williams is a murdering scum who deserves to be put in prison. Soules is a poor unfortunate who hit a tractor that probably didn’t have its lights on and maybe cut in front of him and possibly he was tired and it was going to take the police a long time to get to the scene so he just went home. He was asleep so when the police were yelling at him to come out and calling his phone for five hours, he just slept through it. He feels terrible about the accident and has been punished enough. What purpose does it serve sending him to prison?

If you aren’t disgusted by the stark contrast between these two reactions there is something wrong with you.

I’m not saying everyone is exonerating Soules and eviscerating Williams but I am saying that the majority of comments on both stories are exactly as I’m portraying them.

I’m not sure how much of it is a black and white thing or a belief in Jesus thing but it is most definitely a thing. And it is horrific.

I’m not saying Williams is completely innocent or Soules is totally guilty of a crime. I’m just saying the reaction to both is out of proportion and based on things other than actual facts.

I really don’t have a whole lot to add. There is something seriously wrong with the critical thinking skills of people in this country. There are many people in this nation who are filled with unjustifiable rage against people they perceive as different. I don’t get it. I never will. But I can speak out against it.

Tom Liberman

Facebook to Remove Posts from when you were a Minor

Posted on by

facebook kidsThe latest nonsense from government is a proposal to force Facebook to remove all posts made prior to your eighteenth birthday. It’s making its way through the English Parliament and has the support of the Queen who announced its existence in her speech on June 21.

Fine, I think it’s a silly law, but why? Let me clarify, because that’s what people who are interested in real conversation do. We don’t just tell you you’re an idiot and move on. We explain why you’re an idiot and listen when you explain why we’re wrong.

My first objection is all about freedom and liberty. I’m free to delete any post myself. Now, I agree the current system of having to delete posts one at a time rather than in bulk by date should be updated, but there is no way we should be allowing a Facebook algorithm to delete millions of posts automatically.

Breaking news, I’m old enough that when I turned eighteen Facebook, Social Media, and the World Wide Web simply did not exist. None of my pictures are going to be deleted. It’s not a concern of mine, but if I were one of the affected parties, I’d be angry my pictures were being deleted without my permission. There’s no way the government should be in charge of that decision. And let’s not blame Facebook if this law is enacted. It’s not their fault. It is simply the government telling me any pictures I posted before I turned eighteen are potentially dangerous for me.

This leads me to my second issue with this proposed law. It is part and parcel of a mantra that makes me literally sick to my stomach: We’re doing it to protect the children. No, you’re not. You’re doing it to force your misguided sense of morality onto the rest of us. I can’t even begin to count how many times I’ve heard wannabe fascists claiming they want to take away my freedom because they are trying to protect the poor, helpless children. The children are always the excuse and my freedom is always the victim. I’m not buying it.

It also insults everyone under eighteen. Basically, the law is telling them they might do something foolish, therefore we’re going to protect you from yourself. My experience is that quite a few people under the age of eighteen are far less foolish than many adults I know. Sure, some kids post photos that might embarrass them later in life, so do many adults. The government can’t protect us from such self-inflicted damage nor should they be trying to do so. Parents should monitor their child’s Social Media posts, not the government.

My fourth objection is less philosophical and more practical. Every post that anyone makes is available to be Shared on Facebook. It is available to be posted to other Social Media platforms. It is available to be copied and stored forever. Trying to delete something that’s been out on the internet is pretty much closing the proverbial barn door after the cows are out. It is not going to work.

So, let’s recap. The legislation takes away the freedom of adults by automatically removing pictures they might well want to remain in place and which they could relatively easily remove themselves. It is an excuse for government to intrude on our lives in the name of helping children. It insults the very children it is intended to protect. In the end, the pictures will probably still be out there.

Yeah, it’ll probably pass.

Tom Liberman

The Long-Term Implications of the Castile Verdict

Posted on by

castileOfficer Jeronimo Yanez was found not guilty in the homicide of Philando Castile and while some people consider this an injustice and others feel it was a fair verdict, there are longer term ramifications to be considered.

At the heart of the case is simply the word of Yanez who said Castile was reaching for the gun he declared he possessed. Yanez was afraid for his life because Castile might pull out that gun and shoot the officer. Even if Yanez was alive to testify that he didn’t, in fact, reach for his firearm it boils down to a case of he said, she said.

In these sorts of cases, our court system is designed to protect one party more than the other. In order to be found guilty the jury has to be convinced one person’s story is the truth beyond a reasonable doubt. It is pretty much impossible to say, beyond reasonable doubt, Castile was not reaching for his pistol. Certainly, there was no reason for Castile to do so, having declared on his own that he possessed one. However, it’s the defendant who gets the benefit of the doubt in these cases. If the defendant was scared for his life and the plaintiff has a firearm and reached for it. It’s difficult to find the defendant guilty.

These are facts. What I think is important are the ramifications of this idea. If any person can, out of fear for her or his life, shoot another person who reaches for their pistol, the group of people who have the most to lose are police officers themselves. If I was stopped by an officer and it came to a situation where she or he was reaching for a sidearm, I would attempt to kill the officer immediately. As troubling and horrific as that thought is. What choice do I have? It’s clear the officer can kill me with impunity and claim fear as the justification.

I’m aware that sounds anti-police but that’s not my intent here today. I think police officers do an incredibly difficult job and deal with some of the worst people in our society. I admire many of them greatly and am thankful they are out on patrol. That doesn’t change the fact their lives just became incrementally more dangerous. A small amount of more hazardous is not good for officers out there doing their job. It’s already dangerous enough.

More and more the courts are basically allowing people to kill others because the shooter was ostensibly afraid for her or his life. Officers have benefited from this trend for the most part but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out it’s going to go in the other direction soon enough. That makes me terribly sad.

Our court system is not going to change. That being said, there is a solution. It’s something I’ve spoken about many times in my various blog posts. The reason police officers are so mistrusted and even hated in communities is tied almost exclusively to the War on Drugs. It has turned officers from beloved and revered members of municipalities into the hated enemy. It has created an aura of distrust and hate between officers and the people of the community they serve.

The current administration seems intent on expanding the War on Drugs and that will only end up destroying more lives, police and civilian.

I wince when I consider the stories I’ll be writing blogs about in the future. About the unnecessary loss of life. I’m saddened by the deaths of civilians and law enforcement officers that will almost certainly arise from this verdict and others of the same nature.

As the mistrust between civilians and the law enforcement officers who protect them grows, there is an inevitable increase in fear. The constant companions of fear are violence and death.

Tom Liberman

Gordon Ramsay and the Case that Shouldn’t Be

Posted on by

gordon ramsayThere’s an interesting legal situation revolving around celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay and his in-laws. About seven years ago Ramsay got into a dispute with the father and brothers of his wife. They hacked into his business computers attempting to steal financial information.

Sometime after their nefarious activity was discovered the families reconciled and Ramsay and his wife decided against legal proceedings against the Hutchesons, Chris, Adam, and Chris Jr. The prosecutor in the case felt differently.

That’s what I’d like to discuss today. If the victims of the crime don’t want to prosecute, what should the state do? This is different than prosecuting criminal charges against those who take advantage of people unable to defend themselves, namely children and the mentally disabled. In those situation, I believe prosecutors should pursue criminal charges. However, when the victim is an adult and in possession of their mental faculties, I see no reason why the state has an interest in continuing the case.

A crime has most certainly been committed. It is not legal to take information from someone else’s computer without their consent. If the victim of the crime was interested in bringing the perpetrators to justice there is every reason to prosecute the case.

The prosecutor will put forward a single reason for going through with the case despite the victim’s unwillingness to do so. The law has been broken and it is my job to prosecute the wrongdoer. Without such punishment society will fall apart. If we let the perpetrators of this crime off without charging them, other people will be encouraged to do the same. This is an argument I don’t believe.

Firstly, the reasoning is unsound. The particulars of this case seem so rare as to not provide any hope of the same thing happening for another criminal. No one is out there thinking to themselves the only reason not to hack into a system is because they’ll reconcile with their victim and not have to face prison. It’s just not a thought process for someone considering committing this sort of crime.

Secondly, it is not the real reason the prosecutor wants to pursue the case. The real reason is for the aggrandizement of the prosecutor. For many prosecutors, it’s simply a matter of getting a conviction. The more convictions they get the better their resume looks. Then there is the fact this is a high-profile case. That means time in front of the cameras, which helps any future political aspirations.

Meanwhile, there are numerous reasons not to prosecute. The most obvious reason to drop the case is the time and money used could be redirected to another more pressing matter. This is not inconsiderable. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are quite busy with heavy workloads and the court is swamped as a whole.

The most compelling reason, from my perspective, is the simple fact the victims have no desire to see the criminal punished. If the victim of the crime doesn’t consider themselves a victim, then I don’t see how a crime has been committed. Again, let me be clear, I’m not including children and others who are incapable of making a decision about being a victim in this opinion.

Another reason is that getting a conviction does society no good whatsoever. There is little or no chance the criminals in this case are going to commit a similar crime. Society is not served by putting the perpetrators in prison, fining them some amount, or putting them on probation. It is just money for the system.

And that’s plain wrong.

Tom Liberman

Lee Kaplan Case and Libertarians

Posted on by

lee kaplanLee Kaplan, Daniel Stoltzfus, and Savilla Stoltzfus were recently found guilty of horrific crimes. The case is quite interesting from a Libertarian perspective because all the criminals and victims don’t think anything illegal happened. They are all happy with events as they transpired.

The case is centered around the fact Kaplan helped the Stolzfus family financially and they in turn handed seven of their daughters over to him. He began sexually molesting the girls at least from the time they were only seven years old. The mother lived with Kaplan and helped deliver her own granddaughters. In testimony, the accused and their victims argue they did nothing wrong. The parents contend they have the right to hand over the children and the girls imagine they love Kaplan and he loves them in return.

What happened is vile and criminal. Just because the victim of a crime doesn’t realize she or he is a victim doesn’t mean no crime occurred. This seems to be at odds with the general Libertarian mantra that victimless crimes are not crimes at all. Just people engaging in behavior they desire. Libertarians certainly argue this case for the many and myriad drug crimes on the books and also for cases of prostitution.

This is where I break from a number of what I would call fundamentalist Libertarians. These are those largely ideologically in line with my own thoughts but who have come to despise all forms of government and regulation. This is where Libertarians slip into being Anarchists. I think there are people in this world, children included, not capable of making their own decisions. Those who can easily be manipulated into believing things are perfectly normal and acceptable when they are not.

One of the leading Libertarians, who I largely respect, recently wrote a long article about how children should be allowed to work without government intervention. That by allowing them to earn money we emancipate them. This is a problem for me for a number of reasons. One of which is that I like to consider myself a student of history. Child labor laws, while sometimes draconian, came about in response to terrible crimes against children.

Industrial captains went to orphanages and adopted groups of children to work in their factories doing dangerous jobs. One of the most prominent stories involving this sort of behavior involves an orphan named Joseph von Fraunhofer who became a famous physicist.

In addition, it was not uncommon for men to adopt young girls grooming them for eventual marriage much in the way Kaplan did in this case. The history of horrible abuse against children goes back as far as the written record.

There are people in this world in need of protection. People who simply cannot, by the circumstances of their birth, mental, and physical conditions, take care of themselves. They can be manipulated into performing terrible acts and believing they enjoy doing them.
This is one of the roles of government in society. I’m certainly not suggesting government doesn’t make a mess of things and overregulate and over criminalize. I’m just saying cases like this one convince me some form of government is necessary.

Kaplan is a sick and depraved individual. His manipulation of the Stoltzfus family is appalling. When he convinced the parents to relinquish their children to him he was being despicable. When the parents handed over their children to someone else they were, in my opinion, breaking a justified law. It must be illegal to barter children because they cannot protect themselves.

Just because someone thinks they are doing something willingly doesn’t mean the actions being done to them should be legal. We must take into account the victim. Children, physically disabled, mentally disabled, and others need protection by the state.

Now, if the Stoltzfus’s had simply handed over all their money to Kaplan I wouldn’t have a problem. It is their money do with as they will. If they handed over possessions or allowed Kaplan to live with them and use their car, I would have no problem. They are fools, certainly, but they are adults giving away their own possessions.

Children are not possessions and that’s why I’m a Libertarian, not an Anarchist.

Tom Liberman

Michelle Carter is Encouraging Someone to Commit Suicide a Crime?

Posted on by

michelle carterThe case of Michelle Carter has begun and it presents interesting questions for a Libertarian. Carter essentially encouraged and cajoled a man named Conrad Roy into suicide. He was feeling suicidal to begin with but in a series of texts over numerous days she pushed him to do it, despite the fact he was clearly reluctant and afraid.

I’d like to dispense with the fiction that Carter somehow thought he was not serious about his intentions or that she didn’t actively attempt to bring about what she desired, Roy’s death by his own hand. Anyone who reads the messages must come to the conclusion she wanted Roy to kill himself. We can only speculate as to why she wanted this outcome but that she wanted it to happen is beyond debate.

Without a doubt, we can conclude she is a failed and disgusting human being. But is she a criminal? She didn’t take any physical part in Roy’s death. She did not even purchase any of the equipment he used to kill himself. She took no direct actions that caused his death. She simply told him, repeatedly, that his family would be fine, that his problems would be over, that he would be in heaven, and that suicide was clearly the best and only solution. When he promised to do it and failed, she chastised him for his shortcomings and encouraged him to finish the job.

When the fact of these texts came to light, Roy’s family alerted the police and now Carter has been charged with Involuntary Manslaughter. Essentially, she is being charged with killing Roy.

Therein lies the problem. Carter didn’t kill Roy. She just encouraged him to kill himself. Roy was clearly vulnerable to such manipulations but there is no indication he was mentally handicapped. He was of legal age when he killed himself and of relatively sound mind. He clearly wasn’t thinking very well and was manipulated by a terrible person. I freely acknowledge as much. But he was not legally impaired. As such, Roy is ultimately responsible for his own actions.

People want to punish Carter for her reprehensible behavior and I well understand this desire to make her pay for her actions. She is a horrible person. She deserves a punch in the face at the very least.

Sadly, I don’t think she should be put in prison for her actions. While she certainly encouraged Roy to kill himself, Carter took no concrete actions in making it happen. It’s largely the same as if I said I wanted someone dead. It’s a horrible thing to say but I haven’t actually killed anyone. I can talk about committing all sorts of crimes but it is only when I take physical action toward committing those crimes, or actually proceed, that I’m subject to law enforcement.

If Carter is found guilty of the crime it has rather far-reaching implications. Anyone who encourages anyone to commit a crime might well be charged. Saying something in Social Media about wanting President Obama or President Trump to burn in hell could well encourage a lunatic to attempt murder. There are plenty of fanatics out there and they don’t need much encouragement.

The important reality is that we must be held responsible for our own actions. In this case Roy is dead and that’s a terrible shame. Carter is a nasty piece of work and one would hope people will shun her in the future, but it’s not up to me or the courts to force punishment upon her.

Tom Liberman

WannaCry Illustrates a Strange Path to Combat Software Piracy

Posted on by

wannacryIt may seem like a strange connection but the WannaCry virus that spread wildly in Russia and China illustrates the best way forward in combating software piracy. Up until now, the heavy-handed use of criminal charges has been used by government to protect software development companies.

The government of the United States spent the last few decades passing law after law against those who illegally download files, largely at the behest of the Motion Picture, Music Recording, and software industries. These laws generally caught up a few minor criminals who downloaded a small number of songs or movies while leaving the vast majority of activity unchecked. Our nation then used strong-arm tactics on other countries trying to get them to extradite and otherwise punish pirates.

Meanwhile, in response to the growing virus threat, the software industry has long pushed security updates as a way to ensure the safety of their customers’ computers. This basically means those who have a legitimate copy get these updates.

The idea is simple enough. In China and Russia there is a plethora of pirated software and thus those two nations were far more vulnerable to the WannaCry Ransomware attack. The people of those nations suffered the most when hospitals and other important services were curtailed. An oversight in the coding of the Ransomware allowed the attack to be muted to some degree, but it doesn’t change the overall lesson.

If you want your computer to be safe, you really need to have legally licensed and fully updated software on it. No matter how many laws the government passes and no matter how rigorously they enforce these regulations, software piracy will continue. It is only when the ever-increasing threat of Ransomware and other risks becomes dangerous enough that people realize the need to have licensed software.

It is the criminals who are forcing people to obey the law.

Ironic, ain’t it?

Tom Liberman

What Being Tough on Drug Crime Means

Posted on by

tough on drug crimeAre you, like Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an advocate of being tough on drug crime? If you are; I think you should examine why you feel that way. Some time ago, the nation of Portugal decriminalized drugs. This resulted in a number of outcomes long predicted by those against the War on Drugs. I’d like to take some time to examine these results and also compare and contrast those who gain and those who lose from such policies.

Portugal decriminalized drugs in 2001. What this means is it was still illegal to possess certain amounts of drugs but that people caught with more than that are not prosecuted criminally. Basically, they are given treatment for drug addiction. Thus, they are not tough on drug crime.

What has been the result?

Those people seeking treatment has increased dramatically as one might suspect. That means many people whose lives were destined to be destroyed by drugs were saved. Certainly, not everyone who seeks treatment avoids the ravages of drugs but at least some do. Many lives were saved and improved. Treatment costs money, this is true. But as we’ll see in a moment, it is far less expensive than current treatment costs.

The rate of HIV infection dropped dramatically. This means many people are alive today who would otherwise have died after extended hospitalization. We save lives and enormous amounts of money in the healthcare industry.

Drug related hospitalizations declined. Again, this means lives and money were saved.

Interestingly, the total number of people who used drugs at least once increased, although this may be related to people more willing to admit so in an era of decriminalization. In any case, even if more people tried drugs, fewer became addicted and were harmed by them. It is much like having alcohol at an early age in a supervised fashion. Those who do so are less likely to become alcoholics.

Drug use as a whole remained about equal with the nations around it. Thus, decriminalization did not cause more people to use drugs, one of the main arguments against decriminalization.

Drug use among adolescents declined. The idea that we must protect children is one of the most frequently used arguments by those who oppose legalization or decriminalization. Portugal shows us we accomplish this more readily with decriminalization. If you want to discourage drug use among children, you must support decriminalization.

The drug related criminal workload decreased dramatically. Basically, law enforcement and the court system saw a dramatic saving in time, work, and money because they were no longer prosecuting all those drug cases. People were sent to treatment instead.

The price of drugs decreased dramatically. This means the criminals who sell these drugs are getting far less profit. This takes money out of the hands of criminals which means they are less able to commit crimes.

Finally, the number of drug related deaths dropped immensely. This includes law enforcement officers killed while prosecuting drug dealers and users, and also innocents killed by drug dealers or users.

If I can sum it all up quickly. Decriminalizing drugs saves lives, reduces drug use, saves money, and makes society a better place for almost everyone.

Almost?

Yes, the fact that using and selling certain drugs is a crime does benefit several groups of people.

It benefits the penal system. More people are needed to work in prisons. Companies that supply those prisons have more customers. The penal system in the United States is an enormous business with powerful lobbyists. Decriminalization would cripple their industry.

Law enforcement agencies benefit in some ways. Certainly, we must hire more interdiction officers to police drug use. Entire federal agencies depend on the illegal drug trade to finance their departments. It must be noted that actual officers do not benefit in all ways. They are the ones who prosecute the war on drugs and are often the victims. Their lives are destroyed. They alienate the community they are supposed to police. But, they have jobs. Without the illegal drug trade, many would not have jobs. Police forces would be reduced dramatically and those officers who remained would return to the duties they performed before drugs became their main job.

One of the most important considerations in any policy decisions is the outcome. If the outcome is going to cause tremendous suffering and create significantly more violence and pain, perhaps, you should think twice about backing such policies.

I’m here to tell you, if you are an advocate of being tough on drug crime; you are causing tremendous human suffering. You are destroying the lives of millions of people. I’m certain those who support such policies believe they are helping and making things better. I’m sure they think they are good, decent people.

They aren’t.

Tom Liberman

J.K. Rowling and Stolen Intellectual Property

Posted on by

intellectual propertyThere have been a number of cases involving stolen intellectual property in the news lately and a short story written by Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling is the latest. In addition, episodes from Orange is the New Black were stolen and released after Netflix refused to pay a ransom.

This is an issue that touches close to home as I’m an author. I’ve written nine Sword and Sorcery fantasy books and I’m close to releasing my tenth. I’m certainly not nearly as famous as Rowling nor do I have as much to lose as Netflix, but I like to think of myself as a kindred spirit. What would I do if someone broke into my cloud account and stole the latest version of my book? Or, as in the case of Rowling, physically stole the manuscript I’m proofing? What if they released it for free on the internet? What if they attempted to extort money from me before doing so?

Rowling is imploring people not to purchase the stolen story which is, I suspect, about the only thing she can do. Anyone who wants to read the story and not pay for it, will be able to do so. In fact, anyone who wants to read any of her novels or watch any of her movies can illegally download them for free. It’s not particularly difficult. A collector can purchase they actual, physical story as a keepsake.

We live in a world in which intellectual property is all but impossible to protect. Even if television episodes, novels, movies, music, or any other information is not stolen; once it is released to the public, the ability to copy and redistribute it is all but unstoppable. People who want to purchase it from third parties who don’t own the intellectual rights will always find a way to do so.

What’s interesting about intellectual property theft, as opposed to physical theft, is the person stealing the information wants it. The exception being those who steal with the intent of extortion. Most people are not downloading music, movies, or novels because they plan to resell to a third party. They want to listen to, watch, or read the content. Thus, an appeal like Rowling’s makes an impact.

That’s reality and it’s important for those of us producing such content to understand it. Certainly, the Motion Picture and Music industries have lobbied Congress and gotten stringent and punitive piracy laws enacted. Some people have paid large fines for stealing music and other files but it hasn’t slowed down illegal downloading.

I can rely on the government to pass laws protecting intellectual property. I can rely on cyber-police to attempt to enforce those laws. I can rely on the court system to prosecute those few they catch in violation. What I can’t rely on is any of these methods to stop the theft.

The only way to stop most people from illegally purchasing or downloading such content is to ask them not to do so and to price the content in a way that is friendly. If Rowling were to put her story for sale at $20 a copy, that tempts people to steal it. However, if she places it on sale for $1.99, it is a very short story written on a single A5 postcard, I think the vast majority of her fans would simply shell out the two bucks. Why bother stealing when you know you can support the artist for a nominal price?

There will always be those who refuse to pay even a small price for such content but the various industries and artists have to balance their own profit margin with the potential for theft. As awful as it sounds to moderate our price because of thieves, there really doesn’t seem to be any other option. I currently cannot charge $20 for my novels because I’m an unknown, but if I was famous and my novels were hugely popular I might be able to do so. I wouldn’t.

That’s the only pragmatic solution to this problem. Make content cheap enough that regular people are willing to purchase it. That and use strong passwords!

What else is there to do?

Tom Liberman

Unicorn Against Unicorn and Colorful Lawsuits

Posted on by

unicorn-frappuccinoWhy do people file lawsuits? To win you say? I don’t think that’s always the case, and a recent kerfuffle between a Starbucks, who has a drink called the Unicorn Frappuccino, and a small Brooklyn café selling a drink called the Unicorn Frappe illustrates the point. The End Brooklyn filed a trademark on their drink and has now instigated an infringement case against Starbucks.

The thing that struck me about this lawsuit is what I perceive to be the ends desired. I won’t bore you with a lot of trademark law but basically, The End Brooklyn cannot trademark a drink. They can trademark the name, logo, and slogan associated with said drink. Sadly, the Unicorn part of the name is a pretty generic word. If they had called it the Brooklycorn or something like that, and Starbucks gave theirs the same name, there would be a legal case.

I’m pretty certain The Brooklyn End has no intentions of winning the infringement case. They are well aware Starbucks will be able to continue selling their Unicorn Frappuccino. By now you’re probably beginning to understand where I’m heading with all this. The Brooklyn End gets an enormous amount of publicity for the cost of filing the lawsuit.

The story is making headlines, and arousing passionate comments, in any number of news sites. The cost of this sort of promotion would likely be in the millions of dollars. I, and I’m certain most of the people reading this, had never heard of The Brooklyn End before today. I would most likely have spent the rest of my life in ignorance of this café. Now, I live in St. Louis so there is little chance I’ll visit the establishment in question and spend my hard-earned dollars there. Frankly, I’m a tea drinker anyway. That being said, I’m certain people who do live in that region of the country are now aware of the business.

There is every chance sales of the Unicorn Frappe will rise dramatically because of this lawsuit. It seems obvious to me that was the plan all along. I’m not criticizing The Brooklyn End nor am I being critical of our legal system. What the café is doing is both legal and crafty. Filing the infringement case costs money, there is some chance it will be found frivolous and they might end up paying any fees Starbucks accumulates. I’m certain Starbucks has many competent attorneys at the ready and is not particularly troubled by the case.

It’s a calculated business decision. Is the potential cost of the infringement case more than will be made in increased sales of the drink? If so, it was a mistake. If, on the other hand, sales of the drink are far greater than the cost of the suit then it was a good decision.

This is why we have laws against frivolous suits. The attorney who filed the lawsuit for The Brooklyn End might face serious sanctions if it is determined that it was filed in a frivolous manner.

I eagerly await an outcome to this colorful case.

Tom Liberman

What Constitutes Disruption and the Slide Toward Totalitarianism

Posted on by

disruptionThere’s an interesting case making its way through the courts about a woman who laughed during a Congressional hearing and is now facing charges of disruption. This is not an isolated incident. Authorities seem to be finding a plethora of creative ways to arrest protestors. Many of the arrests made at the Dakota Pipeline Protest were of this ilk.

The right of people to assemble and protest is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and when law enforcement agencies attempt to curtail this right, we must be wary. A totalitarian state does not brook vocal opposition. I’m certainly not suggesting we live in such a state, but every time I hear about dissent being squashed I take note.

Often times what we see in cases like this is that charges are completely dropped before the case gets to court or the charge is dismissed by a sympathetic judge. I think what is necessary to curb this tendency to bring charges against protesters under the flimsiest of circumstances is simply fines. For every such charge in which the case is dismissed, the person so arrested should be financial remunerated by the agent who made the arrest. It’s a relatively simple solution that inhibits those making the arrests and compensates the person so incarcerated.

I’d be particularly pleased if the arresting officer paid the fine out of her or his personal salary. When we fine the agency itself, the officer doesn’t feel any real pain. An agency might think it worthwhile to arrest a bunch of protestors and pay for it out of tax dollars some years down the road. It seems to me anyone looking at even a moderate fine for arresting a protestor on flimsy charges is going to think twice before moving forward.

As I stated at the top of this article, this is not an issue to be taken lightly. Our constitutional rights are at stake. If government agents are allowed to arrest people on ridiculous charges which are dismissed at a later date without penalty, well, there is nothing to stop such law enforcement groups from doing so in ever increasing numbers.

I take the right to protest quite seriously and so did the Founding Fathers. This is a right people on all sides of the political spectrum should embrace. It is almost certain at some time in the future you will want to protest some policy or person and the party in power will not want you to do so.

I’m well aware that some protestors are violent, angry, and disruptive. Such demonstrators should be subject to legal remedies, but I think it’s important to err on the side of caution. Our liberty is at stake. I’m willing to put up with some rudeness in order to be free. If someone yells out in a hearing or puts a foot beyond the barrier; we must accept her or his right to do so.

When we stop allowing people to protest peacefully, they will find other ways to express themselves. None of us want to live in a nation where the only method available to criticize your government is violence. When we justify arrests on the flimsiest of charges, we move our nation incrementally toward that end.

Tom Liberman

Hotel California not really Hotel California

Posted on by

Hotel CaliforniaFor anyone near my age, 52, the song Hotel California brings back strong memories. The song was an enormous hit for The Eagles in 1977. So, I was filled with curiosity when I saw members of the band have filed a lawsuit against a hotel in Mexico called Hotel California.

I’m also quite interested in all things legal and I find the case itself to be utterly fascinating. The Hotel California is a small hotel in Baja California Sur and had that name dating back to 1950. The hotel changed owners and names a number of times, but wily entrepreneurs began to market it under the original name in 2001. Using marketing campaigns and events at the hotel itself, they create an association between the establishment and the song.

The hotel was not the inspiration for the song and the band members feel as though their song is being used to falsely advertise the hotel.
Judging by the comments I’m reading in various articles about the lawsuit, opinions seem sharply divided. Some think it is a terrible overreach by the band while others think the hotel is clearly in the wrong.

Let me begin by telling you that I’m not a lawyer. My opinions herein are not based on a legal understanding of the case but upon a layman’s.

The hotel clearly has the right to use the name Hotel California. It was the hotel’s name long before the song. The Eagles have no right to stop them from using it. The lawsuit apparently simply wants the owners to stop using the false association. I’m guessing their argument is that people who stay at the hotel are disappointed it is not associated with the song and, perhaps, even blame the band for the misinformation.

It’s clear the hotel is creating a false association but that is not necessarily a crime. As the law says, Caveat Emptor. Let the Buyer Beware. The basic premise is that people have to take it upon themselves to understand the hotel is not associated with the song. They must spend the time to research this information before plunking down money to stay at the hotel. People presumably pay this money because they want the experience of staying at a hotel that was the inspiration for the song. Of course, it was not, but who is to blame for this mistake? The hotel or the traveler?

Yes, they are deceiving but have they actually lied? Do they claim the hotel is associated with the song or do they simply pipe in Eagles music, presumably for which they’ve paid royalties? Do they create an environment where the unwary might be fooled, but stop short of crossing legal lines?

Where is the border crossed between fraud and legal, but reprehensible, misinformation? I’m not sure but the entire thing is absolutely captivating.

While the legal case will likely remain in limbo for who knows how long, I think the events are a good lesson for all of us. Don’t assume something is true based on an impression. Pay careful attention to the exact words being used or written. We live in the Information Age. It is not at all difficult to determine the hotel and the song are completely unrelated. A short search on the internet can easily reveal this information. If you spend your money on the hotel assuming the relationship is there, when it is not, perhaps that is your fault.

Tom Liberman

Why was Charlie Sheen forced to Land his Plane by Federal Agents?

Posted on by

charlie sheenCharlie Sheen was flying back from Mexico in a private plane when federal authorities forced it to land and inspected it for drugs. They removed every piece of luggage and used drug sniffing dogs to search everything. In the end, there were no illegal drugs found although one dog, unsurprisingly, gave a false positive. Unsurprisingly?

I’ll take a moment to rant about drug sniffing dogs. They are wrong more often than they are right and they are wrong even more frequently when the person being searched is a minority. An Australian study found they correctly identify drugs about twenty-six percent of the time, the rest being false positives. Basically, the dogs take cues from their handler and, sadly, are not infrequently used simply so police can harass citizens. It’s my opinion they should be banned completely. They allow agents of law enforcement to search anyone they want without cause. If the dog barks, police get to search you despite having no evidence of wrongdoing. It’s a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Another huge problem is that someone in the federal government has the power to halt a private flight apparently for the sole reason that you’re a celebrity who reportedly uses illegal drugs. They can search your plane without any evidence it actually has narcotics.

I think all drugs should be legal, but we currently have laws against them in this country and therefore I’ll acknowledge government agents can search you if they have probable cause to do so.

There might be more to the story. Perhaps someone in Mexico tipped off federal agents that drugs were aboard the plane. It seems much more likely to me that some bright agent doesn’t like Sheen all that much and decided to take a chance. I can see a self-righteous drug enforcement agent standing around the water cooler, eating a donut, waving a pen, and a little light bulb goes off in her or his head. “Hey, Charlie Sheen uses drugs. His plane flies around in Mexico. Let’s stop it and search it! That’ll be fun.”

I pay for the water in that cooler, the donut you’re eating, and the pen you’re writing with. I pay for phones you used to force the San Diego air traffic controllers to force down Sheen’s plane. I pay for those air traffic controllers! I pay for the gas you used to drive out to search his plane. I pay for the dogfood you feed your incredibly inaccurate detection dogs.

Sheen pays for that private flight. He pays more when the flight is diverted and searched. Did the government reimburse him for these expenses and the inconvenience? If so, that’s my tax dollars also!

Does anyone have to explain to a judge why they diverted Sheen’s plane and spent who knows how much money on a fruitless search? If so, can that person be fired?

It’s harassment, plain and simple.

I don’t much like Sheen. He’s arrogant and pretty much a jerk. He thinks because he has money and power he can do what he wants. The government is all of that multiplied by millions. They have all the money in the world, your money. They have all the power in the world except that which our judicial branch infrequently denies them.

When the War on Drugs forces me to defend Charlie Sheen, doesn’t that say it all?

Tom Liberman

Oregon Engineers and the State Licensing Board

Posted on by

oregonThere’s a story in the news about a fellow in Oregon who was fined by the State Engineering board for claiming he’s an engineer when he’s not, at least not licensed in that state. The entire story involving the length of traffic lights is being debated in many places but I’d like to discuss a larger topic, state licensing boards. They’re a problem.

The first thing we must look at is why they exist in the first place. Why does someone have to actually be licensed to practice? The basic idea is that people can and do pretend to be things they are not in order to bilk people out of their money. There are many examples throughout history of this sort of behavior. Even today we see people practicing rudimentary forms of enhancement surgery that end up causing a great deal of harm.

If we have a listing of licensed practitioners, then people can review this list to ensure the person with whom they are dealing is actually capable of performing the job. Would you go to a doctor who wasn’t board certified? That’s the concept.

There is also the ability to remove the license from a dishonest or incompetent member. Lawyers are disbarred for unethical behavior fairly frequently.

I don’t doubt the good intentions behind these licensing boards. We don’t want to hire an unqualified engineer, doctor, or lawyer. Unfortunately, what many of these boards have become is simply revenue generating machines. Basically, pay the fee and get a license to be a massage therapist, a taxi-cab driver, a hairdresser, and on and on and on.

In this particular case, the board becomes a bullying agency and uses its power to punish anyone who even so much as attempts to levy a criticism against it. The state should never harbor those who attack opponents. It should be neutral, but unfortunately that’s not always the case.

These two trappings, money and power, have turned what for all appearances is a good idea into something insidious and terrible. I’m sure there are many excellent licensing boards out there. I’m certain many good people work for these boards and do their level best to make sure people performing professional services have the correct skillset to do so. I’m equally certain that quite a number of these boards exist almost exclusively to bully those with whom they disagree and as a source of revenue for the state or municipality.

I’m not one to pretend there are easy solutions to all these problems, but state required licensing is clearly not a perfect answer either. There are plenty of scam artists out there who paid the fee to get licensed but can’t perform the required services satisfactorily. There are plenty of qualified people out there performing services without licenses, simply because they can’t afford the process of getting one.

Basically, a licensed practitioner might be a scam artists while an unlicensed person might be perfectly capable.

What is the solution? Can we simply eliminate such boards and let the buyer beware? While that method depends on the intelligence and diligence of the consumer, it has its appeals in this information age in which we live. It is not difficult at all to go online and determine if that painting company has a track record of doing their job properly. Do we still need the government to license them? Particularly when we know the pitfalls of such licensing agencies.

Another option is to have a more liberal view of professional ability. In the case in question, the fellow being fined actually has a degree in engineering and practiced in his native country. He does not practice in Oregon and thus forego the time and expense of getting licensed. That the state did not recognize his skills in no way indicates he is not a capable engineer. His lack of licensing and obvious understanding of the subject matter prove this point.

What if we automatically conferred a license to every individual who graduates with the appropriate degree from a college or trade school? I recognize that we can get nitpicky about this. Perhaps the college is merely a diploma mill that doesn’t actually teach the students the required skills.

I think some combination of the above ideas is probably the closest we can get to a true solution. My hope is that technology will eventually give the consumer the information they need to operate without any sort of governmental intervention. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Tom Liberman

Race, Religion, Geography and Chris Soules

Posted on by

chris soulesNot long ago a fellow by the name of Chris Soules smashed his truck into the rear end of a tractor and killed the driver. He then fled the scene and was arrested later that evening after refusing to come in voluntarily. Soules is a minor celebrity having participated in the television show, The Bachelor. He was a man of strong Christian faith. He is a Caucasian. He lived in a rural community in Iowa.

While reading the comments from a relative of the victim, it struck me how willing people were to find an excuse for Soules. He didn’t flee the scene, was merely driving away to go get help. That sort of thing. It’s clear to me people would not have been fooling themselves with irrational explanations if Soules had been of a darker skin color, from a city rather than rural environment, and if he didn’t express belief in Jesus as his savior.

I’m not pulling the racism card, the religion card, or the geography card. I’m just stating what I think is obvious fact. If Soules was black, a city dweller, and a Muslim; most people would not be looking to exonerate him. They would be laying down the blame, insisting on putting him in jail, throwing away the key.

We have perceptions of people in our minds because of these external things that, while not valid, drive our reaction to their deeds.

Let’s imagine we are going to a movie that received rave review. We’re excited, we think it’s going to be great, and our expectations are high. The movie is merely good. We come away disappointed. On the other hand, if the movie got awful reviews and we expected it to be bad; we come away elated. That wasn’t bad at all. I enjoyed it. That’s the affect expectations have upon us and there is nothing wrong with that. That’s reality.

However, this is where critical thinking, pragmatism, and being a decent human being come into play. Yes, we have expectations but it’s important to overcome those expectations and treat each situation as the facts dictate. If the movie was fairly entertaining but not great, then that’s what it was. That’s how you should describe it to friends when they ask you about it.

It’s not looking great for Soules. He wasn’t seeking help when he drove away from the crime. The police had to seek him out and execute a warrant on him. One of the main reasons people flee a vehicular accident is to cleanse their system of alcohol or other capacity diminishing drugs. Some five hours passed after the accident before Soules was arrested.

The accident was almost certainly just that. However, if he was driving under the influence when it happened and fled to avoid testing, then he is guilty of a terrible crime, regardless of race, religion, and geography.

Check your expectations at the door.

Tom Liberman