California Proposition 37

Within libertarian circles no proposition is more controversial that California Proposition 37. The purpose of this measure is to force producers to add a label to food products if those products contain any Genetically Modified foods.

The libertarian argument against is very simple. This is an additional regulation. If people genuinely did not want GMO in their food then the free market would solve this problem. All other things being equal that is itself a good argument, and the libertarian instinct to be suspicious of every new law is a good instinct to have. But those who support Proposition 37 would be glad to say that all other things are not equal, which is why they support Proposition 37.

The reason so many libertarians support Proposition 37 is because of a perception that the free market is unable to function in this instance - not because there is no market for GMO free products, but because the federal government restricts that form of advertising. The label is not outright forbidden, but as is the case with modern American fascism, its use is restricted to the point where it is essentially unusable.

Consumers are not able to get the knowledge necessary for the free market to work. Those who have products that are GMO free are not able to advertise such, and those who have products that are not GMO free are not willing to advertise such. Therefore, to undo the mess created by the federal government at the behest of agribusiness, this ballot initiative seeks to force the opposite condition. Since "GMO free" is forbidden, therefore those protected by that ban must label their foods as containing GMOs.

It is not a perfect measure, it does indeed have exceptions. The big targets of wheat, corn, and soy are covered though. One of the major examples of the discrepancies in Proposition 37, that milk is not covered but soy milk is, is explained by the proposition covering the big three. Soy milk is made of soy while real milk is not made of soy. Restaurants are not covered, so if one buys a prepared meal there is no label. To buy the raw materials at a supermarket and to prepare that meal at home, those raw materials are covered.

Even with those exceptions, this proposition amounts to the State of California giving consumers the knowledge they need for the free market to work, knowledge that is being forcibly withheld by the federal government. This is not the case of the liberal fantasy of law being used to correct a flaw in the market, but is instead a case of law being used to correct law.

California Propositions 30 and 38

From a libertarian point of view, California Proposition 30 and California Proposition 38 are both bad ideas. They both are tax increases in what is already one of the most heavily taxed states in the country, a state that suffers more than others from Great Depression II. They both claim to do the same thing and for the same goal. But even though they are both bad ideas, one of them is clearly more of a bad idea than the other.

The supporters of Proposition 30 advertise it as a tax increase on the rich. It is true that it does increase income taxes on higher income earners, but it also increases the sales tax. The sales tax is a regressive tax that impacts everyone. The supporters of Proposition 38 advertise it as an income tax increase, which it is. Only the income tax is raised, but it is raised on everyone.

Both of these measures are supposed to be for education, to fund the schools. The monies that might be raised by Proposition 30 go into the general fund and are not dedicated to the schools. The reason school funding is impacted by Proposition 30 is because the legislature and the governor put a trigger in the budget to cut school funding if Proposition 30 is not passed. Proposition 38 dedicates all of the revenue that might be raised to the schools bypassing the general fund.

Given these differences, if someone is inclined to agree with the arguments used to sell these propositions, it makes sense that Proposition 38 would be the preferred ballot measure. While the California PTA prefers Proposition 38, the California teachers unions have come out strongly for Proposition 30.

The unions join the rest of the political classes in favor of supporting Proposition 30. Across the state, the more strongly tied to the unions or the Democratic Party a group is, the more likely it is to support Proposition 30 over 38. The arguments in favor of Proposition 30 are very disingenuous.

Both of these propositions are bad ideas, but it is quite clear that Proposition 30 is a far worse idea than Proposition 38.

California Proposition 19

When discussing voting, the point was made that there is a good side and a bad side to every ballot proposition. That is actually an exaggeration, as some ballot propositions are procedural and have no impact on individual liberty. Examples of this are California's 2010 propositions 20 and 27 which address redistricting, which the Libertarian Party of California has taken no position on.

Then there are complex measures, which have positive features and negative features. Those require more careful analysis, to determine whether the overall effect of the proposition is more beneficial than harmful. An example of that is Proposition 19, which has caused debate in libertarian circles.

Of course the purist argument is that "legalize it and tax it" contains three unnecessary words, that all that should be needed is "legalize it." In a perfect world a simple "legalize it" would be on the ballot, but the absence of a perfect proposition shouldn’t deter people from analyzing whether Proposition 19 is worth voting for.

So is Proposition 19 more beneficial than baleful?

According to Ballotpedia if Proposition 19 passes then the laws are greatly loosened. Persons over the age of 21 will be able to grow and possess small amounts of marijuana.

It does not address federal activities, and it is theoretically possible that local police could ignore this law by working with federal law enforcement. An unnoticed criticism of Proposition 19 is that, like 10th Amendment resolutions, it lacks teeth. Many police and district attorneys are against Proposition 19, and while they will be unable to directly act against small marijuana users they can always encourage cooperation with the DEA.

Overall though it is a step in the right direction. Not a full step, not a perfect step, but definitely in the right direction. Given how few steps there are in any good direction, this is definitely worth supporting.

On Voting

There are three common arguments made about voting by libertarians. The first is made by those who are too ready to sacrifice principle; that a person must vote for the lesser of two evils. This is a wasted vote. Voting for a Republican or a Democrat on the premise that the candidate from the other major party is worse really makes no difference. First of all most districts are safe districts and the winner of the general election is really determined in the primary. For state-wide races, such as senators or the president, most states are safe states as well.

Voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t send the message the voter generally assumes will be sent. If a person votes against candidate A by voting for candidate B, all the vote totals show is another vote for candidate B. Votes do not come with labels saying "this is actually a vote against the other candidate", it is counted as a positive endorsement of all the flaws of candidate B.

Maybe in some particular races the counter argument could be made. In Minnesota, for example, the margin of victory in the 2008 senate race was less than the third party total, and Republicans bitterly complained about Libertarians allowing a Democrat to win the office - but Republicans forgot that the votes do not belong to the Republican Party, that they had not earned them, and in fact had acted in such a way as to guarantee that those voters will vote Libertarian. In attempting to make the lesser of two evils argument in that particular case, defenders of lesser of two evils not only undermine their own case, they support showing that the case is the exception and that most races are not nearly that close.

Except for the very extreme case, the vote for a third party will not decide the race between the major party candidates. In Texas, a voter trying to choose between Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party or Barack Obama of the Democratic Party will not swing that state. In California, a voter trying to choose between Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party or John McCain of the Republican Party will not swing that state. Also, a voter choosing between McKinney or Obama in California or Baldwin or McCain in Texas will not change the outcome.

But put it another way, take a theoretical voter trying to decide between Cynthia McKinney as his first choice or Barack Obama as the lesser of two evils candidate. If he votes for McKinney he increases her vote total from 161,603 to 161,604 (a percentage increase of 0.0006), but if he votes for Obama he increases his vote total from 64,639,738 to 64,639,739 (a percentage increase of 0.000000015). Clearly voting for McKinney would have a greater impact.

The two arguments on effective voting center on whether or not someone should vote at all. Well reasoned arguments are made on both sides of the issue. Those against voting are attempting to withhold consent from the state, consent that the state claims to have from participation in the system. Theoretically if someone votes, the person agrees to abide by the outcome of the election. Those in favor of voting, and not for the lesser of two evils, say that only by voting can the voice of the voter be heard, however faintly, alerting those in power to the wishes of the voter.

On the consent issue, the state has constructed an inherently contradictory case. If a person does vote the person is said to have given consent through participation; however, if a person does not vote the person is said to have given consent through not bothering to participate by expressing that the voter is content with any outcome. The two arguments contradict each other, but that is no concern to those who support gaining the illusion of consent. Whether or not someone votes, it is counted as consent, so therefore there is no reason to not vote; better to vote in a way that sends a clear message on the voter’s preference.

It is true that if there is no good candidate then there is no point in voting, but if there is actually a good candidate then by voting for that person it does increase, in however small a number, the chances that said candidate would win and does relay the message of who the voter actually supports and what the voter actually wishes of the government. Since the leaders of the major parties seem to believe that the votes belong to the major parties, by voting outside the two party framework a voter sends a disproportionately loud message by not "giving" to the parties that which "belongs" to them. The more voters fail to "deliver the goods" the more the parties start to work on how they can adjust to cause those voters to return. It is even possible, though unlikely, that the major parties could move towards greater liberty without ever attracting a pro-liberty vote. They will never move in that direction if they can get the pro-liberty vote without effort, or if they do not know that the vote is out there.

But there is one area in which the message sent by voting is unmistakable: ballot propositions. There are only two sides to a ballot proposition: yes and no. One of those options is clearly better, and there is no splitting of the vote with third options on ballot propositions. Sometimes the right side of the ballot proposition wins, such as Proposition 13, and sometimes it loses, such as Proposition 14, but every vote on a ballot proposition counts. There is no argument against voting for a ballot proposition.

Marginalizing Third Parties

The two parties, in collusion, have ever sought greater ways to limit outside competition. Ballot access laws, campaign finance laws, and safe districts have done much in this area, but even then third parties are still on the ballot. Occasionally a third party even garners more votes than the winning margin between the two approved candidates. Occasionally a third party even wins some office.

That situation is considered, by those who feel it is their right to rule others, intolerable. They really have no complaint, because in the few instances in which the rules could have applied to the major parties, the rules were waived. In 2004, the Republican Party held its convention rather late in the year to put it as close to September 11th as possible. As such, Bush was named the candidate after the filing deadline had passed in two states that Bush eventually carried. Had the law been enforced, Kerry would have won in 2004. In 2008, both the Republicans and the Democrats failed to file on time in Texas. Had the law been enforced, the Texas electoral votes would have gone to Bob Barr. Theoretically Democrats should have supported enforcing the law as written, since it would have enabled them to sail to an easy victory. In reality the Democratic Party leadership recognized a higher principle, that of maintaining the duopoly, and was willing to sacrifice victory in 2004 and risk sacrificing victory in 2008 to maintain their top positions.

It goes without saying that had a third party filed late, no such exception would be made.

But a way to truly disenfranchise third parties has reared its ugly head and is spreading, one state at a time, through the United States. Currently it is festering in California under the guise of California Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act of 2010.

It purports to fight partisanship by putting all candidates in one primary, without regard for party. Anyone can vote for any parties candidates. The top two vote getters will proceed to the general election.

The minor argument against this proposition is that it will result in two Republicans running against each other in Republican Safe Districts, and two Democrats running against each other in Democrat Safe Districts. This will leave those in the out party having little choice.

The middle argument is that this will entrench incumbents even more. As has been shown in Louisiana, the only incumbent to lose after an approach like this was passed did so because redistricting had that incumbent lose to another incumbent.

The greatest argument is that this will destroy all third party electoral chances. As has been shown in Washington (the state), no third party candidates have been on the general election ballot since that state adopted this measure. California Proposition 14 would even eliminate the protest of a write in candidate, so any third party voter who continues to vote for a third party candidate will not have the vote counted and will have the ballot disqualified.

This measure is exactly what one would want to further entrench the duopoly. It is corruption manifest and must be defeated.

Analysis of the California Ballot Propositions for May 2009

Generally analysis of ballot propositions is quite simple. Any ballot proposition that advances liberty is supported, any that diminishes it is opposed, and any lateral movement is abstained. But sometimes special circumstances around a ballot proposition can force one to think tactically instead of strategically and take a position outside the normal rule. Some of the ballot propositions are clearly anti-liberty, some have the potential to be mixed, and some of them are lateral movements. Only one of them is good.

Proposition 1A is the worst that will be on the May ballot. If it is approved there will be a budget cap, but there will also be two additional years of higher taxes. The budget cap contains loopholes so that voter approved initiatives could divert money from the “rainy day fund” and any tax increase raises the budget limit. The arguments against were carefully chosen from friendly sources to ensure that they do not mention the extended taxes. If Proposition 1A fails the voters get two years of higher taxes. If Proposition 1A passes the voters get four years of higher taxes. This measure must be opposed.

Proposition 1B is simply additional spending. In the best of times libertarians oppose additional spending, and these are not the best of times. It diverts money from the rainy day fund and gives it to the schools. The catch is that Proposition 1B only passes if Proposition 1A passes, making this a bribe to the teachers to not oppose Proposition 1A. Normally the teacher’s union would oppose even a phony budget cap as offered by Proposition 1A, but if they oppose Proposition 1A they lose proposition 1B. This measure also must be opposed.

Proposition 1C allows the state to sell the proceeds from future lottery earnings. Essentially this allows the state to go into debt by borrowing against the lottery. It is by going into debt that California got into the current mess it is in. It would be simpler to just divert money from the lottery. In some respects this is a lateral move that would simply be ignored, and in some respects this is more debt that should be opposed, but if it is treated as a lateral move this is one of those exceptions about ignoring lateral moves. If this is considered lateral, it should be opposed for the tactical reason of solving the budget crisis on the backs of the taxpayers. This would nullify part of the horrendous budget deal and force the legislators back to work. Whether considered as a diminishing of liberty or a lateral movement, this measure should be opposed.

Propositions 1D and 1E are both clearly lateral movements. They divert money from special funds that libertarians opposed in the first place. Proposition 1D allows the state to divert money from a special children and families fund created in 1998 by raising taxes on cigarettes. Proposition 1E allows the state to divert money from a special mental health fund created in 2004 by raising taxes on millionares. Both of these take special fund monies and put them in the general fund. There may be a libertarian argument in favor of doing that, but because approval of these propositions would facilitate the horrible budget deal they should be opposed.

Proposition 1F is the only good measure on the ballot. It prohibits pay raises for the legislature and they governor if the budget has not passed. This one should be supported.

Source

Arizona Proposition 105

Innovative ways to restrain the state are always interesting and always a good idea, provided that they actually do restrain the state. Proposition 13 of California was such a one, restricting the ability of governments in California from raising the property taxes.

Arizona is set to vote on another way of restraining the state by restraining taxation, Proposition 105.

The proposition requires that any tax increase, in order to pass, gain a true majority in the polls. A true majority is a majority of all registered voters, not just those that show up to the polls.

This means that unless a majority of the voters show up at all, tax increases will fail. This means that if a majority does show up, and a majority of that majority votes for the tax increase, it does not mean it will pass because 50% of 50% is 25%, which is a minority of the voters.

Critics of this measure decry this as a way to count the votes of those who did not vote, because there is truth to the argument that any absent vote counts against the measure. The argument is that the state is unable to determine the true intent of those who do not vote, and therefore should not be able to count them in favor or against any tax increase.

The critics acknowledge that raising taxes via ballot initiatives, a popular method among state legislatures that do not want to take responsibility for tax increases, will be much harder.

And that is good. That is why 105 should pass.