Golden GateLIBERTARIAN

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Libertarian Party of San Francisco • 2215-R Market Street, PMB170, San Francisco, CA 94114 • (415) 775-LPSF • www.lpsf.org • December 2000

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Vote December 12!

Hall (District 7) and Leno (8) Make Good Impression in Person, Shanley (4) in Writing

The meeting with candidates for the Board of Supervisors on December 4, organized single-handedly by Outreach Director Starchild, was a remarkable success in several ways, proving that apathy and pessimism are not always the most reasonable attitudes.

The event drew more than a dozen libertarians, some of whom had rarely been seen at Libertarian functions before. It was very nice for all of us to make new friends. The Thai House Restaurant, at Market and 15th Streets, also provided some exceptional food. (Special recommendation on #97.)

Only two candidates showed up (J. R. Manuel, whom we had endorsed for District 11, was present, but unfortunately did not make it into the run-off.), but both brought some pleasant surprises.

Tony Hall, District 7 (West of Twin Peaks)

Hall introduced himself as "sympathetic to libertarianism" and characterized himself as "maybe Jeffersonian." He is probably telling the truth: Starchild reports that the San Francisco Independent called him an "ultraconservative," probably its ultimate insult.

Hall is running against Mabel Teng, whom he described as being 100% a Brown candidate who has made a career out of more government services. During Teng’s tenure, the city budget has gone, he said, from $1.7 billion to $4.1 billion. Hall contended that 15% or 20% of city jobs could be eliminated without ever being missed, and he proposes to eliminate about 3000 of them. Although there are certain functions he thinks are done best by government, by and large

(See Supervisors, p. 2.)

Meeting Schedule Changes!

Next Meeting December 16

Beginning in January 2001, the monthly meetings of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco will be held on the second Saturday of the month rather than the last. (Same time and place.)

On our old schedule the November meeting fell during the Thanksgiving holiday and the December meeting fell between Christmas and New Year’s. Attendance at both meetings has thus been typically low. These are, however, months with important business, especially the selection of delegates to the state convention in February. (Selection in January leaves too little time for advance-purchase price breaks on convention and hotel registration and airline tickets.) Election of LPSF officers is also in January, and it is appropriate to prepare a slate of candidates to be announced in advance of that meeting.

The May meeting has also been a problem because of Memorial Day, and this meeting is important for planning our Gay Freedom Day participation. Consequently the LPSF voted in its November meeting to switch the regular meeting time to the second Saturday. The December meeting had already been changed in October to the 16th, which is the third Saturday of December, so the change was made effective in January. Note that there is no social hour for the December 16 meeting, so everyone can get home early to celebrate Beethoven’s birthday.

There have also been ongoing discussions about other places and times for meetings. Chair David Molony, in particular, has been eager to arrange evening meetings during the week in the Financial District, in the hope of attracting a different crowd. Such meetings might eventually become the regular business meetings, or they might serve simply as an additional social gathering. Finding a suitable space for which we did not have to pay more than a nominal fee has been a problem, however. If you have any suggestions, please let Dave know.

GOLDEN GATE LIBERTARIAN DECEMBER 2000 PAGE 2

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Supervisors (from p. 1)

he said he favors private enterprise.

In response to our question about schools, he noted that the middle class had begun fleeing San Francisco about 20 years ago, and that for many of the immigrants who largely replaced them, education was a luxury. Consequently, he says, the city government was able to get away with murder. Administration now accounts for 56% of the education budget. Hall would call for an immediate audit, with the goal of bringing the administrative budget down to the national average of 32%. He supports vouchers, and suggests that they can even be justified by the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which entitle children to an education at the least cost.

On the question about transportation, he specifically recommended bringing back jitneys. (Jitneys, halfway between taxicabs and buses and opposed by both businesses, make multiple stops but don’t travel fixed routes.)

Hall supported the right of people to give food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless without having to get a government permit. "People should be allowed to extend acts of charity without a permit," he said.

On the drug question, Hall identified himself as "one of the original proponents of the legalization of drugs." He had written, he said, a column advocating legalization in the San Francisco Examiner in September 1976. When asked about the demand for more funds for drug treatment programs following the passage of Proposition 36, he argued that there was already enough money allocated for treatment programs, without taking any away from law enforcement.

Rent control he opposed as "confiscation of private property." He noted that changes are tough in a city where 70% of the people are tenants, but he would propose some alternatives involving voluntary purchase.

On the question of permits for late-night dance parties, he contended that they had been used largely for revenue, and were not needed.

On gay marriage he took the very libertarian position that the role of the state was "neither approving nor denying, maybe witnessing."

Needless to say, his audience was quite stunned. Some also noted that his campaign literature doesn’t sound nearly so libertarian. In fact, one piece boasts that, as Chief Administrator of the District Attorney’s Office, he "led anti- crime enforcement efforts to prosecute drug dealing and

(See Supervisors, p. 3.)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chair

David Molony

chair@lpsf.org

(415) 516-3151

Vice-Chair

Kelly Russell Simpson

KellySimpson@pacbell.net

(415) 487-9325

Secretary and Database Manager

Vince Grubbs

vwg@sirius.com

(415) 682-9482

Treasurer and Newsletter Editor

Mike Acree

macree@psg.ucsf.edu

(415) 668-5794

Elections Chair

Jerry Cullen

gtcullen@slip.net

(415) 567-9642

Membership Chair

Mike Denny

mfd@MichaelDenny.net

(415) 750-9340

Outreach Director

Starchild

(temporarily without e-mail)

(415) 626-3036

Media Coordinator

Jerry Pico

picoman@mindspring.com

(415) 885-5350

Fundraising Chair

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.

Next meeting: December 16, 3-5 p.m. (no social hour), upstairs at Round Table Pizza, 5160 Geary Blvd. (at 16th Avenue).

GOLDEN GATE LIBERTARIAN DECEMBER 2000 PAGE 3

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Supervisors (from p. 2)

violent crime offenders." There is thus the obvious possibility that Hall was simply telling us what we wanted to hear. That interpretation strains credibility, however. The number of voters present&endash;from his district&endash;was not significantly different from zero. Hall’s presentation of libertarian ideas was too well-informed, and too consistent, to have been pulled together just for this event. It was also delivered with evident sincerity. The more plausible interpretation, to those present, was that it was more his message to the general public that was subject to shaping.

Hall lost to Teng by a considerable margin in the original election. There is reason to expect that most of those who voted for other candidates, however, will support Hall over Teng in the run-off, so there is some realistic chance that he can win. If you would like to help with his campaign, call 504-7322.

Mark Leno, District 8 (Castro)

Leno made no attempt to present himself as a libertarian. (Points for honesty, as well as for showing up, and for faxing in written answers to Starchild’s 10 questions.) He obviously had some familiarity with libertarian ideas, however. Moreover, as the owner of a small business (Budget Signs), he has some sensitivity to issues of economic regulation. As a Libran, he said, he is always working for peace between different factions. In this regard he has been especially active in the area of housing.

According to Leno, any building over 40’ high requires a conditional use permit. This is an arduous, expensive process which culminates in a public hearing. Architects have to be hired, and plans drawn up; then the whole thing can be overturned at the last minute. Leno has sponsored legislation which would improve the approval process. As a trade-off for that benefit, developers would be required to offer 12% of their units at below-market rates, at their own expense. He said the Planning Commission had estimated that this change would produce 1000 more housing units per year, which would represent a doubling of the current rate.

He regards rent control, and price controls more generally, as a temporary expedient at best, he said. In a less libertarian vein, he has introduced legislation capping the space for new stores in certain neighborhoods like the Castro, in an effort to keep out the chains and preserve their local charm. He also favors, he said, a strong public school system.

On the questions of whether he would allow gifts of food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless without a permit, and of whether he favored ending the War on Drugs, he gave a simple, unqualified Yes. In the meantime he suggested an ID program for medical marijuana users, to ensure that they could get marijuana without hassle.

On the question of permits for late-night dancing, he proposed the establishment of an Entertainment Commission for "one-stop permitting."

Attendees were very much impressed with Leno personally&endash;with his openness, fairmindedness, and thoughtfulness&endash;despite our differences on some issues. Leno said his opponent, Eileen Hansen, favored 100% rent control, which would freeze development. Starchild reports that Hansen told him frankly that she thought Leno’s positions would be closer to ours than hers were.

If you’d like to help with Leno’s campaign, the number is 378-5467. Ask for Teresa. Volunteers will be meeting at The Bar, 456 Castro, on Sunday at 11 to pass out literature, and there will be a Get Out the Vote drive on Tuesday.

John Shanley, District 4 (Sunset)

Shanley did not attend the meeting on Monday, but faxed answers to Starchild’s 10 questions. He pledges not to increase government, and to reduce its size. He would attempt a voucher program for schools, and conduct an investigation of the current system. He would allow community transit system to compete with the government-run systems like MUNI and BART. He might allow food to be distributed to the homeless without a permit, but was concerned about hygiene, and about the possible regulatory burden on government. He thinks San Franciscans pay too much in taxes. He is for legalizing marijuana, but is not sure about coke and heroin. He agrees that rent control makes the housing situation worse and raises prices. He thinks permits for late-night dancing parties should be eliminated, and that police should respond only to disturbances. As for whether the government should be involved in approving or denying marriages to gay people, he says, "No!"

Other Races

We don’t have enough information for formal recommendations here. These candidates did not respond to our questions either in person or in writing. A few impressions:

(See Supervisors, p. 4)

GOLDEN GATE LIBERTARIAN DECEMBER 2000 PAGE 4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Supervisors (from p. 3)

District 1. Michael Yaki is antilibertarian on practically every issue. Jake McGoldrick is endorsed by the Tenants Union, but has at least not taken a stand in favor of gun control.

District 3. Aaron Peskin explicitly refused to return our questionnaire and to attend the meeting. Lawrence Wong at least apologized for not having returned the questionnaire.

District 5. Matt Gonzales, having recently switched to the Green Party, might be presumed liberal on social issues. According to J. R. Manuel (the candidate we had endorsed for District 10), Gonzales opposes the War on Drugs. (Juanita Owens is described by Manuel as a "wholly owned subsidiary of Willie Brown.") Starchild queried an aide to Gonzales about his stands on economic issues. The aide said that Gonzales was concerned about bonded indebtedness and was fiscally cautious in general. The aide noted that, among the Supervisors, only Gonzales and Yee refused to sign the Senior Citizen Pledge.

District 11. Amos Brown is possibly the worst of the current Supervisors from a libertarian point of view. He has the distinction of having pushed through legislation allowing the confiscation of cars for crimes like prostitution. Gerardo Sandoval is supported by J. R. Manuel, but we have little direct information.

__________________________________________________

Whom Can You Trust in the Gun Control Debate?

By Bryce Bigwood

On November 15, the Independent Institute (www.independent.org) of Oakland, CA, had its monthly event, this time with Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University, and David B. Kopel, research director at the similarly named Independence Institute (www.independenceinstitute.org), speaking on "Gun Control: Separating Fact from Myth." Gary Kleck is described as a liberal Democrat, and David Kopel is apparently a "conservative libertarian." Gary Kleck was promoting his book Point Blank (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ ASIN/0202304191/qid%3D976118857/107-2857578-2857317). I got a copy of David Kopel's book Guns: Who Should Have Them? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/ obidos/ASIN/0879759585/qid%3D976118737/107-2857578-2857317), which he edited and wrote several chapters for.

Chapter 5 of Kopel's book, "Bad Medicine: Doctors and Guns," by Don B. Kates (self-described as a liberal, and a previous speaker at the Independent Institute) and three doctors and a geneticist, talks about the most basic split in the gun control debate: On the one hand you have articles by physicians appearing in medical journals (especially the New England Journal of Medicine (http://www.nejm.org/) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/)), which invariably show the need for more gun control, versus articles in professional journals by economists, sociologists, and criminologists which run from advocating gun control to questioning how effective various gun controls have been to attacking gun control as ludicrously backfiring. The chapter goes into some detail showing that the standards for science in medical literature (at least on this issue) are almost nonexistent, and how alternate viewpoints are simply ignored (a recent exception is an article in the JAMA showing that waiting periods have no impact on crime statistics). And, although there are social scientists who advocate gun control, all the popular statistics against private ownership (such as that a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as an intruder, or that suicide statistic comparisons between Vancouver and Seattle show that Canadian gun control saves lives) seem to be from the medical journals, which media personnel must read exclusively. But the New England Journal of Medicine's explicit editorial policy since 1968 has been to advance gun control (p. 277), so why should we trust anything published about gun control in it?

John Lott: Too Good to be True?

As you may know, Yale economist John Lott is infamous for his study which led to his book More Guns, Less Crime (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0226493636/reasonmagazineA/002-6402680-3077647). This study is the most comprehensive study on gun control laws to date, taking 18 years’ worth of data from every one of the 3000+ counties in the United States. His main point is that automatically granting concealed weapons permits to law-abiding individuals reduces confrontational crime. Many criminologists have had good things to say as well, but as indicated in an interview with Lott (http://www.reason.com/0001/fe.js.cold.html), Gary Kleck is not completely persuaded by the data. I spoke with Gary after (See Guns, p. 5.)

GOLDEN GATE LIBERTARIAN DECEMBER 2000 PAGE 5

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Guns (from p. 4)

the formal discussion about his critique of Lott, and his answer should actually be no surprise to libertarians: Why do you think you can trust government data? To be more precise, while not disbelieving county crime statistics per se, he just indicates that from year to year, many counties have not been consistent with their methods of reporting and aggregating their own sources, so that we cannot necessarily trust Lott's statistics, even though his mathematical technique may be flawless. But in part because of studies like Lott's, since 1994 counties across the nation have become much better about standardizing their methodologies for statistics-gathering, and once a few more years pass and John Lott reanalyzes a better data set, Mr. Kleck says we will see how right Lott is.

I think we can be cautiously optimistic, since Mr. Kleck said that large-population counties have tended to be more consistent in the past; and I believe these are the counties that show a stronger correlation between declining crime and concealed weapons permits in the medium term.

But again, this just shows again that gun control advocacy is not always about scientific reasoning. Immediately after Lott's study came out, Lott was vilified as a lackey of the gun manufacturers (later the ammunition manufacturers, once it was pointed out that gun manufactures don't really have enough money to have lackeys), none of which is true. But this one plausibly scientific critique of the study has been staring his critics in the face for a couple of years, and they have been too busy snarling to pounce.

__________________________________________________

More on Ballot Recommendations

I am a Libertarian of several years registry, and a (lowercase) libertarian all my life. In the October 2000 issue, you discuss and solicit opinion on the best way for Libertarians to address ballot propositions. Ballot props give us a valuable and important opportunity to convey a Libertarian perspective on issues that matter to members of our community. If we will lead our community, then we must address the issues that matter to them.

On a given prop, a Libertarian might vote Yes, or more often No, and sometimes a Libertarian might take no position. When we recommend a Yes vote, we make our position very clear. When we offer No Recommendation, we appear indecisive and unready to govern. Therefore, we should always recommend either Yes or No.

When we recommend a No vote, we may agree with nine parts of the prop, yet find the tenth objectionable. Then others may misconstrue our position, thinking we object to some of the nine. For this reason, we must always address the issue and describe how we would handle this situation.

For example, on San Francisco Proposition O (Public Campaign Finance), we recommended No. Both public financing of political campaigns and limits on individual contibutions violate libertarian principles. We must go further than that. We should acknowledge and describe the problems of current customs, methods, and regulations of campaign finance. And we should describe what methods the Libertarian Party favors. Further, we should take care to express our views using positive, affirmative language whenever we can. On this particular issue, we might say something like the following.

"The Libertarian Party considers contemporary campaign finance practices undesirable in several ways. We feel the candidates give excessive consideration to the political preferences of large donors. We feel this creates favoritism, gives excessive influence to wealthy interests, and too frequently creates "bought" and "puppet" politicians, all of which undermine democracy. We also believe these undesirable conditions rely somewhat on anonymity. Large donors give more freely when they give quietly or under the cover of political action committees and other front organizations. At the same time, we believe democracy can and should empower each person to use her own resources to advance her political purposes. Therefore, the Libertarian Party strongly favors full, prompt disclosure of all matters related to campaign finance. Every donor should make known his identity, the amount of her donation, and the issue or candidate receiving the donation. Every candidate and political organization should make known amounts received and the identities of the donors. Public campaign financing merely puts more money into the system. Limits on contributions limit personal expression, and they divert some contributions to indirect or fraudulent channels. Therefore, we recommend a No vote on this proposition. Libertarians favor no public financing of campaigns. Libertarians favor unlimited responsible personal expression. Libertarians favor full and prompt disclosure."

Daniel Brockman

[Note: The Libertarian Party opposes mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions as an invasion of privacy. &endash;Ed.]

GOLDEN GATE LIBERTARIAN DECEMBER 2000 PAGE 6

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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:

(Note: Joining the LP does not automatically make your voter registration Libertarian.) The Libertarian Party is the party of principle. To publicly affirm what we believe&endash;and to ensure that our party never strays from our principles&endash;we ask our members to proudly sign this statement:

r I wish to make a separate donation of $__________ to the Libertarian Party of San Francisco. (Membership dues go primarily to the national and state organizations.) Nonmembers who donate at least $15 will receive a one-year subscription to the Golden Gate Libertarian.

r I wish to volunteer to help with ______________________________________________________________________________________. (Please specify if you prefer to help with campaigns, computers, event plans, information tables, mailings, newsletters, phone calls, speeches, etc.)

Name:

Address:

Phone(s):

E-mail:

Total enclosed: $______________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Golden Gate Libertarian

2215-R Market Street, PMB 170

San Francisco, CA 94114

Forthcoming events:

Sunday, December 10: Volunteers for Mark Leno to pass out literature. Meet at The Bar, 456 Castro, 11 a.m.

Tuesday, December 12: Vote for Supervisor. Get Out the Vote with Mark Leno. Call 378-5467 and ask for Teresa.

Saturday, December 16, 3-5 p.m.: Regular LPSF meeting rescheduled to avoid the holiday. No social hour.

Saturday, January 13: Regular LPSF meeting. Election of officers.