Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Think You're Libertarian? CA Ballot Positions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:25 AM
Original message
Think You're Libertarian? CA Ballot Positions
Thought I'd post this for some of our friends who think they're Libertarians.


Libertarian Party of California Takes Positions on November Ballot Initiatives

PANORAMA CITY, Calif. (PRWEB) October 31, 2005 -- The Libertarian Party of California (LPC) has taken a position on the November ballot initiatives. It supports the governor's reform initiatives - Props. 74-77 - and opposes Props. 78, 79 and 80. The LPC took no position on Prop. 73.

"The governor's reform initiatives are good for California and for its citizens," said Aaron Starr, chairman of the Libertarian Party of California. "More reform is necessary, but they all are a step in the right direction.

"As for the competing prescription drug initiatives, each would mean either higher overall drug costs or higher taxes, and probably both. You are supposed to vote for Prop. 78 to stop the passage of Prop. 79. We see no point in playing that game.

"And finally, Prop. 80 is not a viable solution to whatever perceived problem its sponsors are trying to solve. California's regulatory environment is ultimately responsible for there being insufficient electrical generation and distribution capacity in the state, and has brought California's primary energy companies to the brink of bankruptcy--and beyond. More government is not a fitting solution to a government failure.

"Interfering with markets is ineffective at best, and may cause disastrous economic distortions at worst. The only way to deal with so-called market problems is to let the free market work it out itself. It always has, and the energy and pharmaceutical markets are no different."

The LPC took the following positions on ballot initiatives:

*Prop. 73 (Parental Notification): No position.

*Prop. 74 (Teacher Tenure): Yes.
Our government-run education system is failing students. Holding teachers to the same standard required of most workers is a step in the right direction. Assuming that teaching is such a special occupation that, unlike almost all others, its practitioners actually deserve the special job protection of becoming a "permanent employee," then it is not unreasonable to require teachers to demonstrate real proficiency over a period of five years before tenure is granted.

Also, if teaching really does stand out in this way from all other occupations, then it is fair to expect its practitioners to stand up to strong critical review and to be able to improve to an acceptable level if found wanting. The job is too important to be left to those who are just getting by.

*Prop. 75 (Paycheck Protection): Yes.
Currently, public employee union members are unfairly forced to support political efforts that they may oppose. The current system makes it very difficult for such union members to opt-out. Prop 75 changes the system to one where members must give their permission in advance. This common sense measure gives back individual union members control over how their dues are spent. This measure does not apply to private sector unions, nor should it.

*Prop. 76 (Live Within Our Means): Yes.
This measure would somewhat control politicians' appetite for spending more money than they have by capping spending to a limit of the average outlay of the last three years. This initiative would force politicians to adhere to spending limits that are adjusted for inflation and population growth. It is a simple and fair requirement, and not a tax cut but a modest tax cap. Although it could provide even tougher protection against runaway spending, this measure is better than the safeguards taxpayers have now.

*Prop. 77 (Redistricting): Yes.
As most California voters know, the state Legislature has created electoral districts where it is virtually impossible to oust an incumbent or elect a representative from a different party. In the 109 seats contested in the 2004 General Election, not one incumbent lost office. Essentially, politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around--an obvious conflict of interest.

This measure is an effort to take the politicians and politics out of district border creation. It will create an impartial districting team, to which anyone, including the Legislature, can suggest a redistricting plan. The team will submit the best plan to the people in the form of an initiative. In the end, it will be the people, not the Legislature or the panel of judges, who will decide how district boundaries are to be drawn.

*Props. 78 and 79 (Prescription Drug Prices ): No.
Nearly 40% of the nation's biotechnology companies and employees are based in California. Instead of penalizing businesses who invent and produce medicine, let them continue to deliver the widest and best choice of medicine in the world, and at the best value.

Make no mistake, any discount forced upon drug companies would be shouldered by their (other) customers, employees and shareholders--and the taxpayer. These propositions would limit incentives to research medicines or to start new drug companies. The state bureaucracy would be the largest beneficiary. Both measures are bad medicine for California.

*Prop 80 (Energy re-regulation): No.
Forget for a moment that the California energy industry never was fully deregulated, this measure would return the state to the system that already proved it didn't work. The bad old days of brownouts and endless rate hearings by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would come back to haunt taxpayers. That approach did not work then, and it won't work now.

What's necessary is not partial regulation, but full deregulation. By taking away choice from the energy consumer, this measure would limit competition. Moreover, it would place additional burdens on energy companies with little if any benefit.

About the Libertarian Party of California:
The Libertarian Party of California represents voters who are socially tolerant and fiscally responsible. Just last year, the Libertarian Party of California helped defeat $4.2 Billion in tax increases.

# # #

Press Contact: Richard Newell
Company Name: LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA
Website: www.ca.lp.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. Can we distinguish, please, between social libertarianism,
Edited on Fri Nov-04-05 02:31 AM by impeachdubya
small-l libertarianism, left libertarianism and the Libertarian PARTY?

I've never voted for a Libertarian candidate, I've never registered Libertarian- yet I agree with them on some issues, just like I agree with the Greens on some issues.. and I still hold out hope that my party, my DEMOCRATIC party, will find the nerve to unequivocally support a SPHC system (like the greens) and unequivocally support the rights of consenting adult individuals to be left the hell alone about their own personal choices in their own homes and bodies (like the Libertarians).

I realize that stance pisses some people off, but I can't figure out why.

I'm also not sure exactly why the jihad against libertarians tonight. I must have missed something, I'd sure appreciate a link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
really annoyed Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I think the thread was deleted
There was a thread with a new poster describing 15 libertarian positions. I think that is how all this pestering of libertarians began.

I've got some libertarian leanings myself - but I'm a liberal, and not ashamed to say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Ahh. That 'splains it.
The guy's gone, I'd wager we can probably wrap this up. :party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. I glanced at the thread
I didn't know it had deteriorated into a flame fest and got deleted though. I just read this in my email and thought it was quite ironic, people might rethink if they saw the actual policies in black and white.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I'm just posting this release
There's no jihad, I swear. I just think sometimes people don't understand the real world implications, beyond some of the simpler rhetoric of "stay out of my business". Easy enough to toss around "libertarian", but I think one needs to consider that it plays out in very real ways which can be seen in their position on the ballot measures. I just thought it was interesting that they have the exact opposite view of these ballot measures as Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Probably why I'm a Democrat.

But, really, given the obsessive nature of the control freaks in government and elsewhere who are pathologically incapable of staying out of people's business, I happen to think "stay out of my business" is a reasonable position to take, certainly with regards to some issues.

I mean, I'm in favor of progressive taxation, a solid social safety net, good schools, all that. I think Prop 77 is a GOP power grab, pure and simple..

But I'm wondering what other parts of "stay out of my business" people have a problem with. I happen to think when you're talking about consenting adults making their own choices, yes, the government should stay out of their business- whether you're talking about what women do with their reproductive systems, which gender they choose to have sex with, if they are terminally ill and they want to choose a pain-free exit on their own terms, etc etc. I don't have a problem with social libertarianism as a philosophy, and I think the real-world implications are far less onerous than having a government that wants to play big daddy or big nanny about people's personal choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. That's what I said
People who claim to be libertarian are usually referring to the MYOB part of it. No problem with that. But when you see the real world policy that comes from them, it's just not the same thing. It's kind of a sounds good theory that doesn't look good on paper at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Only reason I even pay attention to them at all
is because I wish the Democratic Party would articulate a stronger and more unapologetic stance for the rights of individuals to make their own choices about themselves and their bodies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I tend to agree
But inevitably, even on social issues, the libertarian goes too far. I kind of do think a bartender shouldn't serve drinks to somebody who is blotto and could get in a car and kill somebody. Or that repealing all drug laws would solve the drug problem. Same thing on guns. It's a fine balance between protecting kids from physical abuse and interfering with parenting. It would be nice if one could just let people take responsibility for themselves without interference, but when tragedy strikes it doesn't look like such a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. People who drive under the influence are committing a crime.

I had a friend killed by a drunk driver. No one is more passionate about that than me. But driving under the influence is the crime; not just being drunk. I don't think legalizing all drugs would solve the drug 'problem' any more than repealing prohibition 'solved' the problem of alcoholism- but repealing our misguided drug laws would solve the drug war problem, namely the criminalizing of millions of otherwise law abiding Americans for what they choose to put in their own bodies, most of them pot smokers. A $40 Billion a year "drug war" and the highest rate of incarceration of non-violent offenders in the industrialized world hasn't solved the drug 'problem', either.

Realistically, with regards to drug laws, I'm torn between realism and philosophical libertarianism, myself. Philosophically, I'm tempted to say what consenting adults put in their own bodes is no damn business of the government, period. From a realism standpoint, I think the drug war should be de-funded, pot should (Clearly. Without question) be legalized, regulated and taxed, and for harder drugs we should adopt a health-based, harm reduction approach like the Netherlands.

I think it's pretty easy to see where personal liberty crosses the line into everybody's business- neglect or abuse your kids, commit a crime, drive under the influence- you're no longer involving only yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Except it's not
When Fred serves Jane 10 drinks in 3 hours, and has done so every night for the last 3 years, and Jane's car is in the parking lot every single time, well at some point I think it's common sense that society will say "stop serving her drinks". Do you know that they actually used to put people on a "no drinking" list? I forget what it was called, but it was a law, an old guy told me about it. Get arrested on drinking related crimes so many times and you were put on the list. Try to drink again, bam, you're arrested.

You think it's easy to differentiate between willful neglect and poverty? A spanking and abuse? Do you use foster care for the kid with the dime sized bruise on his back, or save it for the kid with a puffy lip? Or the kid who eats ramen every day? Where's the lines, or are none of these abuse because 30 years ago they wouldn't have been.

The black and white is easy to call, the gray never is. Seems to me libertarianism wishes to live in the black and white and pretend the gray doesn't exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Well, prohibition didn't really work.
Having a government with long lists of who is permitted to do what, and when, sounds pretty frikkin' onerous to me... and it sounds like an expensive waste of time, to boot.

And bar owners can already be held liable if they serve drunk people who go out and drive.

Again, I lost a friend to a drunk driver, so I take the issue VERY seriously. And the strongest substance I ingest these days is green tea; I don't even drink alcohol, at all, anymore.

But I don't see the value in placing the primary blame for criminal or dangerous behavior- i.e. driving under the influence- where it belongs, namely on the person who gets behind the wheel.

And fuck me if any of that is any sort of justification for nanny state censorship on what consenting adults can read or watch, trying to control how terminally ill people choose to die, or a $40 Billion Dollar a year drug war aimed primarily at people who smoke pot-- all of which are some areas where I STRONGLY agree with the Libertarian Party's positions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. Good point, Impeach
I am a social libertarian and a fiscal socialist! I'm proud of the idea that government should take out of private matters and family life, yet provide a safety net for people who fall down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tmiley Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-05-05 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. Problems with the social safety net
I would point out that the so-called social safety net, as has been constituted, amounts to little more than keeping people (minorities especially) out of the work force. I would have less of a problem if people who were on welfare but were able bodied were required to do volunteer work or go to school to develop job skills, but too often welfare has only been a way to feed people and little else.

Thus, they stay impoverished and dependent. Our social safety net, at least in the past, has been little more than a way to nip the black middle class in the bud, so that they won't move into the neighborhoods of rich republicans and limosine liberals.

I honestly don't know anything about what effect welfare reform has had on the people stuck in the system. I haven't a clue.

Are big-L Libertarians social darwinists? I don't know. I do believe, personally, that, like a muscle, self-sufficiency must be exercised constantly in order to become stronger.

What we need is a humane social safety net, not a spider web that keeps people trapped in poverty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-05-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Hi tmiley!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
20. I agree with them..
.... on almost everything - except anything having to do with business, economics, tax policy - you know - money in general.

The rest of their beliefs are pretty much "leave people alone" and "leave other countries alone".

Who could argue with that?

But the economics issues trump everything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. Having read the Libertarian Party platform, I'd rather vote Republican.
Edited on Fri Nov-04-05 02:39 AM by BlueIris
And up until that point, I'd kind of liked Libertarians and what they had told me of their philosophies (I know--I'm so ashamed).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Really?
Edited on Fri Nov-04-05 02:45 AM by impeachdubya
Have you read the Republican Platform? Like the part about the "Human Life Amendment" which would ban the birth control pill? Or the part in the GOP Texas Platform which states the US is a, quote, "Christian Nation"?

I'm wondering what parts of the Libertarian Party platform you found so offensive- really, I'm curious.. I have no intention of voting Libertarian, so I've never read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. I like MYOB too
When it gets to real world policy though..

:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I'm wondering if you have any specific examples of what you mean. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. The OP
:shrug: That's why I posted it.

Am I confused???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. No, but the issues they've taken a stance on are all economic
political, or what I would consider social safety net issues, like schools.

I'm surprised they didn't come out against 73, but that's the only one there which covers social policy.

I don't agree with the Libertarian party on any fronts regarding taxes, corporations, politics, unions, or the like. Only place I agree with them is the idea that individuals should be left well enough alone if they aren't interfering with anyone else, that they should have control over their own bodies and the like- that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to pay taxes, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. About the only thing I agree with the libertarians on is their social.
No drug war, no government interference in private matter, get out of the marriage business, etc.

Their governmental policies suck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Extend a Hand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
13. The pharmaceutical industry
does not operate in anything even remotely resembling a free market.
This is what really bugs me about the libertarian party as opposed to the philosophy. How
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinzonner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. It's important to remember that fundamentally

the Libertarian approach to government's role in society boils down to Social Darwinisn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC