Some of us have always looked forward to receiving the Libertarian Party newsletters with ballot recommendations, and have regarded these recommendations as one of the most valuable services performed by the local and state parties. It is certainly a time-consuming chore to wade through the hundreds of pages of ballot pamphlets, trying to discern what the real issues are behind propositions of obscure import or origin, and between which factions or interest groups they may reflect a struggle. Knowing that thoughtful Libertarians have gone over the propositions (and possibly the candidates) in some detail affords a degree of confidence in voting without investing so much effort.

There are nevertheless some grounds for concern. Some are obvious. Just how well informed, for example, are those Libertarians who are voting on these recommendations? That depends partly on who happens to attend the meeting at which these decisions are made. But the more general answer is always, "Less well-informed than we would wish." To reach you in time for the November election, the recommendations must be published in the October newsletter. That means the votes must have been taken at the September meeting--before the ballot pamphlets have even been mailed. It means further that the entire slate of propositions (and possibly candidates) must be considered within a single meeting, which may have other pressing business as well. Recommendations may be most useful precisely for those propositions which are especially convoluted or obscure; yet time for pondering and debating these is practically guaranteed to be inadequate. In the present case, our adoption of No Position on several propositions was partly a response to insufficient time for full investigation and consideration.

The question of making ballot recommendations also obviously arises with those propositions which offer a mixed bag, leaving libertarians themselves divided. One common example is propositions which would take partial steps in the (see Recommendations? p. 2)

The LPSF voted to make the following recommendations on local ballot propositions at its meeting of September 30.

A. Branch Library Bonds: NO (with 1 absention). Libertarians aren’t opposed to branch libraries, just to government funding of them. Even with government funding, this is the sort of item for the regular budget. A special bond issue suggests problems in managing that budget.

B. District Aide: NO (1 abstention). Growth of government with no compelling rationale. This proposition would make permanent the third aide that was allowed 3 years ago on a "temporary" basis.

C. City Worker Retirement Benefits: NO (1 abstention). This proposition aims to make retirement benefits for city employees as generous as those for employees hired before 1976--reversing a cut that was made at that time. The Libertarian Party doesn’t take a stand against equity, of course, but there was some feeling that the previous adjustment had been in the right direction.

D. Children’s Fund: NO (1 abstention). This proposition extends setting aside a portion of property tax for an additional 14 years. The LPSF does not oppose children’s well-being, but questions whether the government is the best provider. Starchild, whose argument against Proposition D was published in the ballot pamphlet, suggests that children would be better served by getting government out of the way, by repealing laws which oppress children particularly. It is notable that the proponents of Proposition D completely ignored his arguments.

E. City Retiree Health Benefits: NO (Unanimous). A $12.5 million increase in the cost of local government, for the purpose of equity, as in Proposition C. The pattern eventually becomes clear: One group wins a special benefit; then it has to be extended to all others out of fairness.

There is also a more subtle concern, having to do with our public image. This is an issue which relates as much to arguments published in the ballot pamphlets as it does to voting recommendations.

Arguments in ballot pamphlets are surely the most cost-effective publicity the Libertarian Party can get. They give us the chance to put our arguments out, as we wish, to millions of voters, for free (subject to space limitations and the arguments’ being selected). To date, the Libertarian Party, especially at the state level, has tended to focus on arguments against bond issues. (An exception is Proposition D on the current San Francisco ballot. Although it is a tax issue, Starchild’s arguments did not focus on the economic aspects.) These are easy and worthy targets of opposition. But our focus on those, to the neglect of social issues like the Knight Initiative (the recent Proposition 22 on the definition of marriage), has two important and unfortunate consequences: It strongly reinforces the popular perception (a) of libertarianism as a species of conservatism, and (b) of libertarians as people who care about nothing but money.

The reality we are stuck with for the time being is that most ballot propositions are bad ones, and so most of our recommendations will be negative. Witness the current local list, where there wasn’t a single proposition we could unambiguously support. A further consequence is that our long list of Nos can easily convey the superficial impression that libertarians are against everything: libraries, schools, prisons (well . . .), veterans, retired firefighters, and so on and

David Molony

chair@lpsf.org

(415) 516-3151

Kelly Russell Simpson

KellySimpson@pacbell.net

(415) 487-9325

Vince Grubbs

vwg@sirius.com

(415) 682-9482

Mike Acree

macree@psg.ucsf.edu

(415) 668-5794

Jerry Cullen

gtcullen@slip.net

(415) 567-9642

Mike Denny

mfd@MichaelDenny.net

(415) 750-9340

Starchild

dreamer@ziplink.net

(415) 626-3036

Jerry Pico

picoman@mindspring.com

(415) 885-5350

Chris Maden

crism@shore.net

(415) 504-8677

Opinions expressed in unsigned columns of the Golden Gate Libertarian do not necessarily represent those of anyone but the Editor.

Submissions are encouraged. The deadline (including agenda and calendar items) is the first Thursday of the month. Text should be sent to Mike Acree at <macree@psg.ucsf.edu>. Photos and artwork should be mailed to Mike Acree, 859 45th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94121-3223. Please let us know if you want your item returned.

on. Ballot recommendations and arguments are not typically a very good way of getting across what libertarians are for.

Many libertarians have a simple litmus test for a ballot proposition: Does it increase the size or cost of government? Yet there are sometimes propositions where the application of this criterion can be questioned. The last ballot had a proposition to allow city employees to donate unused sick leave to other employees with catastrophic illness. The fiscal effect would unquestionably have been an increase in the cost of government, since the whole purpose was to permit the use of a greater total amount of sick leave. But it could be argued--and, in fact, was argued by some Libertarians--that the fiscal effect was also rather marginal--as against a significant humane benefit from adopting the measure. Going on record against such a proposition portrays libertarians at our most cold-hearted and mean-spirited. Quite apart from the question of appearances, some libertarians may actually support such a measure on humanitarian grounds. We took no position on that proposition.

There is, of course, an easy solution to these dilemmas for some libertarians: Don’t vote. But the anarchist option is awkward for those of us still working within a political party. Another approach would be to clothe naked yes/no recommendations with some discussion from a libertarian perspective. We have done a little bit of that in this issue. But we would like to hear from you on this issue: Are ballot recommendations and candidate endorsements a help--or an embarrassment? We will consider all responses for publication unless you instruct otherwise.

__________________________________________________

F. Closure of JFK Drive: NO POSITION (Unanimous). There are no obvious libertarian principles involved in either this proposition or in Proposition G, with which it is paired.

G. Closure of JFK Drive with Limits: NO POSITION (Unanimous).

H. Landlord/Renters Costs: NO (1 vote against a recommendation of No). In prohibiting rent increases for construction costs other than seismic work, this proposition limits freedom of contracts between landlords and tenants, with predictable economic consequences.

I. Business Tax Revision: NO POSITION (2 abstentions). This proposition is a mixed bag. There are reasons for favoring elimination of the gross-receipts method of calculating business taxes, but the measure would also increase business taxes and tend to drive businesses out of the city.

J. City Contractor Contributions: NO POSITION (2 abstentions). Another mixed one. It limits the freedom of government officials--not necessarily a curse--and of those who would give them gifts. Who among libertarians thinks a legal ban would work?

K. Office Development Controls: NO (Unanimous). The business regulations in both this and Proposition L are an easy No for libertarians.

L. Office Development/Live Work Controls: NO (Unanimous).

M. Taxicab Permits: NO POSITION (2 abstentions). There was some sense that the main effect of Proposition M would be to favor larger companies or groups over individual entrepreneurs. This is not a shift that libertarians would especially welcome; otherwise the implications for libertarianism of shifting beneficiaries in a state patronage system were unclear.

N. Controls on Rental Conversion: NO (Unanimous). In restricting freedom of economic activity, this proposition is rather clearly antilibertarian.

O. Public Campaign Finance: NO (Unanimous). Both public financing of political campaigns and limits on individual contributions violate libertarian principles.

P. Hunters Point Clean-Up: NO (1 vote against recommending No). There was some feeling that nonbinding policy propositions, like P, Q, and R, should be opposed on principle, as a waste of time and money to put on the ballot. In the case of Proposition P, it appears that the Navy has already agreed to clean up the site for whatever purpose it will be put, but is waiting for that purpose to be set, to avoid a more expensive clean-up than might be required for certain uses. That seems reasonable.

Q. Pedestrian Safety Fund: NO (1 abstention). This proposition only makes it a "policy" to set up a Pedestrian Safety Fund for $2.4 million a year. Pedestrian safety in San Francisco is a real problem, but who thinks such a fund would help? Who doubts that, with the passage of Proposition Q, it would be set up?

R. Pier 45: NO (1 abstention). "Public educational facility" sounds like something we would expect to be subsidized in one way or another. A private-, for-profit use, currently intended, seems more supportable.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

902 Innes Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94124

(415) 835-3191

E-mail: jrmanuel4district10@yahoo.com Website: www.geocities.com/jrmanuel4district10

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Choose from two popular styles:

(415) 555-XXXX

FLASH! Possible visit to Bay Area by Harry Browne November 1 or 2. Contact Jerry Cullen at gtcullen@slip.net for the latest info.

If everyone received the Golden Gate Libertarian by e-mail, the LPSF would save about $2500 a year on postage and photocopying. Perhaps you can think of projects on which that sum would be well spent. We recognize that not everyone--not even every Libertarian--is plugged in, and that not all those with Internet access will have laser printers which can do double-sided copies on 11"´ 17" paper. If you can receive Word attachments and can make do with more primitive printing, however, please e-mail Mike Acree at macree@psg.ucsf.edu and let him know. We can also send the documents as plain text.

r I wish to become a member of the Libertarian Party. I understand that I will be joining the local, state, and national levels of the LP, all for one of the four annual membership rates or the lifetime rate indicated below, and I will receive the Golden Gate Libertarian (local newsletter), LPC Monthly (state newsletter), and LP News (national monthly newspaper). I choose the following membership category: