Here is the proposed press release discussing our ballot and candidate recommendations. After having a long talk with him, I believe we should recommend one additional candidate whom we did not discuss recommending at our meeting -- Sherman D'Silva, who is one of three candidates running for Supervisor in District 1. You can see my comments on him in the attached press release, but of course if I am outvoted and people do not wish to recommend him, then we will not do so.
Also, I did not end up saying anything specific about the school board and community college board candidates because I was trying to keep the document to two pages (which it does fit on, barely, after I adjusted the margins), and was running out of space. Since we kind of felt like we were grasping at straws in those races anyway, I felt okay with not giving them more specific recommendations, but we could make it longer in order to have room for comments there, or cut in other areas, or just not recommend/mention them at all. But the way it is seems like a good balance to me. Please review the attached document as soon as possible, so that if there are any disagreements we can vote by tomorrow afternoon in order to get something out tomorrow, as it's already October 24 and people are already voting.
On his "District Plan" page, D'Silva outlines 10 problems along with his 10 "solutions." Apparently, there's no problem too small to be outside the ability of Big Govt to get bigger by micromanaging our lives even more than it already does.
Not surprising since we live in a police state, segueing into a prison state, eventually culminating in a concentration camp state.
I think Sherman wants government to start delivering on the basic services that taxes are "supposed to" be going to pay for. I tried to explain to him about this kind of government failure that (in a lovely expression I've been borrowing from Chris Maden, who probably borrowed it from someone else), "It's not a bug, it's a feature." I don't think he quite gets that, but I encourage you to call him and try to politely explain what's wrong with his solutions. His number is (415) 269-1889. He seems open to hearing ideas and thinking about them. The more you can offer concrete, credible non-government alternative options for fixing the issues he's complaining about, the more convincing I suspect you will be.
Nevertheless, the stuff on his "District Plan" page is petty nuts & bolts stuff that government already has the power to do anyway. It generally falls under the category of, "Stuff that would be good to have done, that just shouldn't be done via aggression." The police/prison/concentration camp stuff generally falls into a different category, the category of, "Stuff that NO ONE should be doing, that is truly criminal and wrong." Much different.
Would you like me to post the part about the candidates (starting with "With no Libertarians running....etc) on the LPSF website, or will you? I suggest it be done by tonight, since it is only two weeks to Election Day, and we would like our information to be useful the as many voters as possible. I can post under your name, if you like, not under "Elections Work Group" as are my posts on the City propositions.
BTW, we voted at the LPSF meetings to "support" candidates that are "less bad." I vehemently voted against that precedent, but since we work as a team, I am happy to help in the effort to publicize our choices. Ugh!!
Sure, feel free to add it. I guess under "Elections Work Group" makes sense, since it's clearly elections stuff and you established that byline. I think in practice here our "support" (at least this cycle) isn't going to amount to anything more than recommending to a few voters which candidates are best (or least bad) in some races.
Even a limited Govt libertarian believes the only responsibility of Govt
involves protecting us from physical harm or fraud. D'Silva's
10 District Solutions requests the state stick its claws into an area
neither minarchists nor anarchists believe it belongs.
Hi Michael! I'm going to go with Starchild on this one. The 10 solutions are for basic services that the government is already doing. His page actually illustrates what a lousy job government is doing, and he is only suggesting ways for it to be more efficient to do what the taxpayers are already being forced to pay for. Striving for efficiency isn't wrong. He isn't recommending claw sticking for any additional government intervention, and his suggestions are not deplorable like some candidates but more like common sense. I had to laugh about the one about the lights being out and someone from the Supervisor's office driving down each and every street to make sure lights aren't out. When government takes care of these things, everybody feels it's someone else's job to worry about it. When a light goes out in my street, I'm always amazed that nobody calls the city to get it fixed. I always end up doing it myself--and actually they're
surprisingly fast about repairing it. I think this is just another example of community spirit being replaced with the deadness of government spirit where "someone else" is responsible for it, so I'm not going to worry about it.
If Starchild feels this guy has some possible merit as a "less damaging" person on the Board of Supervisors, then I'm OK with listing him in our recommendations (not endorsements) as a person of possible merit.
I never intended that we "support" any candidates that are not Libertarian. But,
let's be clear about this. SOME of these people are going to be elected,
whatever we may think of them. When faced with this situation, I generally vote
for the ones I think will do the least amount of damage.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply in which you wrote:
> Starchild is only suggesting ways for it [the Govt] to be more efficient...
When I joined the LP I thought it was a party devoted to increasing liberty, hence the term "Libertarian," not increasing efficiency.
I'm not denying efficiency is a good, I'm denying it's the function of the LP. There are many goods not within the purview of liberty. For example, some European Govts are researching "happiness" so the State may increase happiness.
It makes sense for the Libertarian Party to work to increase liberty, the Happiness Party to increase happiness, and the Efficiency Party to increase efficiency.
Please correct my understanding of this if it's flawed.
Sometimes having government be more efficient is not in the interests of freedom -- being more efficient at collecting taxes, or at wiretapping, for instance, are not things to celebrate. But in other cases -- making sure people in jail get adequate medical treatment, administering elections in a manner so as to minimize the potential for vote fraud, etc., it is definitely in the interests of freedom for government to be efficient.
I'm not saying all the things Sherman D'Silva talks on his site about having government be more efficient at necessarily fall into the latter category, only pointing out that government efficiency is not a concept inherently at odds with libertarianism.
Even from the anarchist perspective of seeing government as wholly illegitimate, as long as government is exercising a monopoly or quasi-monopoly on doing something that should be done by someone, and others are being prevented or precluded by government-created circumstances from doing it, I think it is generally better that government do it well, at least in cases where there is going to be significant suffering if they do it poorly.
I'm not objecting to the LPSF considering efficiency when liberty is also an aspect of the candidate's program. I'm objecting to the LPSF endorsing a candidate whose District Solutions reflects no criteria involving liberty.
Similarly, I would not object to us considering happiness when liberty is the major criteria for endorsing a candidate. I would object to us endorsing a candidate who makes happiness his sole criteria in advancing his platform.