I would like to add my opinions on the general objectives implicit in the proposed Civil Liberties Initiative to those already offered by Starchild and by Ron, and also vote for one initiative idea:
1. I am having trouble defining for myself what "left leaning" really means as it applies to our San Francisco voters. In an effort to gain some understanding, I have just spent a couple of hours googling the following: "San Francisco left"; "Left leaning politics",San Francisco; "Left leaning voters",San Francisco; Issues,"left leaning",San Francisco. After looking over tons of articles, I came away with the following issues (listed in no particular order of importance): poverty, low income, homelessness, capital punishment, the draft, tenants rights, gay rights, ethnic discrimination, the bottom-liners in the dot-com boom, urban flight, voting rights, criminalization of AIDS, criminalization of the homeless, Green Party issues. My point here is that we need to understand what really could appeal to *significant* portions of the left.
For my part, I think I have a good idea of what "left leaning" means. But I applaud you for doing the reading. Any suggestions?
2. As Ron, I also would prefer an initiative that would have a direct impact on a local situation that needs fixing. That would preclude resolutions that merely send messages but have no direct effect on the status quo. I believe we need to be especially careful not to send a mixed message when we decry our political leaders for spending taxpayer money on silly stuff while spending a lot a resources ourselves on a toothless initiative.
The Kyoto Accord was a toothless measure -- but look at how much media coverage it has spawned, how much it has become a rallying point for the environmental movement and an albatross to the Bush administration. We should be so lucky as to pass an initiative *with* teeth that had 1/100th the political impact.
For example, I would love to see employers freely hire day laborers; however, nothing we propose at the local level can change the state and federal laws regulating employment.
True. However we could seek to stop the city from engaging in actions such as reported here: Day Laborers to SFPD: Stop the Crackdown : Indybay
3. When I think of a civil liberty issue, I think of a governmental entity preventing me from doing something which I am entitled to do under the Constitution or existing laws. I do not think of my fellow citizens protecting themselves from a behavior which might infringe on their well being.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Lots of the things that you are entitled to do under the Constitution or existing laws would undoubtedly be seen by many of your fellow citizens as infringing on their well-being.
Does the *significant majority* of my left-leaning neighbors (I live next to San Francisco State University, not a particularly conservative neighborhood) want so see people sleeping in their cars, or using loudspeakers indiscriminately, or driving without a license, or walking around nude? As for the homeowners in our midst, I would doubt if they would be happy with a massage parlor opening next to their home, which I would wager they would perceive as depressing the value of their property.
Just to clarify on the amplified sound point, I'm not suggesting that we propose to let people use amplified sound anywhere at any time; my primary idea there was to remove the permitting fees associated with free speech activities. But I'm sure you're right that most people would prefer not to see the things you mention above in their neighborhoods. Nor would we be asking them whether or not they want to see those things in their neighborhoods. We would be asking whether city government should be violating peoples' rights, wasting resources, and making dubious moral judgments by criminalizing a particular type of behavior or enterprise. We would have reality on our side: There is little objective evidence that repealing laws against nudity, for example, would result in an explosion of streaking through residential neighborhoods. Of course the opposition *might* try to scare people with visions of their neighborhoods going to hell. We could counter by accusing them of running a fear-based campaign, but I'm certainly not promising that all of these initiatives would be easy wins -- I only recall saying that about the resolution against the "Patriot" Act.
4. I would be all for reopening bath houses as a civil liberties issue, so long as we repeal tax payer funded health care.
Should we infer that you are also in favor of allowing junk food to be sold legally, so long as we repeal taxpayer-funded health care? And what if taxpayer-funded health care is NOT repealed? Do you say no more legal cigarettes, high school football games, or Round Table Pizza?
5. Finally, if I were to choose from the list Starchild provided, I would vote for:
--Modifying local health code laws if they are preventing private parties from feeding the homeless. Private parties might include Food Not Bombs or restaurants that find themselves with surplus food. I would definitely add a responsibility clause to such an initiative; since I do not want irresponsible or malicious people poisoning the unwary with tainted food.
That sounds reasonable to me, so long as we don't write something that opens the door to frivolous lawsuits. This initiative would definitely require some research, but it doesn't seem like it would be prohibitively complicated. It would certainly help dispel notions of libertarians being heartless conservatives.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>