Language of 16/17y.o. Vote Measure

Hi everyone,

Here is a link to the language of proposed charter amendment "16 and 17
year olds voting in municipal elections":

I got it from Measures | Department of Elections

For more background on this issue, see

Rather than endorse the measure, I move that the lpsf recommend a yes vote.

-Richard

Well you know that if 11 members of the SF Board of Supervisors voted in support, there’s something wrong with it. Among potential issues is that 16 and 17 year olds are not responsible adults. The frontal cortex of the adult brain isn’t formed until the age of 26. So there are reasons to not involve people with immature brains earlier than they already are. Also, as they are often not financially independent, they are more likely to vote like they would be voting if they controlled their more responsible parents. Which they don’t thank God. Those of you who have had teenagers will know what I am talking about. I’ve had 4 and still have a 19 year old who is CLUELESS. My 28 and 29 year olds are showing promise. So you know the reason the entire board of supervisors wants 16 and 17 year olds to vote is because they are CONFIDENT they will be persuaded to vote in favor of the STATE. What the SFLP gets from this is VERY unclear unless we are playing some kind of 4th dimensional chess game where we feel the obvious is not as obvious as it seems. Please explain it to me. Are we hoping and praying the 16 and 17 year old kids will see that Libertarians are in their camp? And that they will appreciate that enough to join our ranks. FANTASYLAND. Our endorsement will be swept under the rug and never discussed. 16 and 17 year olds are not even going to LOOK at the Ballot Handbook.

I want to hear from Michael Edelstein who voted against during our meeting.

Mike

As a mother with a 38 and 40 year I am also against 16 and 17 year olds voting. No way were my kids or any of their friends able to make a thoughtful considered decision at that age
Françoise

Mike,

I’m with you for many of the reasons you list.

In addition I assume a “no” vote would appear counterintuitive to the mob, which may garner attention to the LPSF.

Michael E.

Thank you Michael….so you are basically suggesting we steer clear of this one. Right?

“which may garner NEGATIVE attention to the LPSF”

If so, I’m with you.

Mike

I agree with Walter Block, “any attention is good attention.” Especially for a small player like the LPSF.

I vote “no” on the proposal to make voting more inclusive.

Hi Françoise,

With what “thoughtful decisions” pass as currently, I’m wary of “thoughtful decisions” running my life. The fewer the better.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
www.TheREBT.Life
www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com

Co-author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks, addiction

As a mother with a 38 and 40 year I am also against 16 and 17 year olds voting. No way were my kids or any of their friends able to make a thoughtful considered decision at that age

Françoise

Well you know that if 11 members of the SF Board of Supervisors voted in support, there’s something wrong with it.. Among potential issues is that 16 and 17 year olds are not responsible adults. The frontal cortex of the adult brain isn’t formed until the age of 26. So there are reasons to not involve people with immature brains earlier than they already are. Also, as they are often not financially independent, they are more likely to vote like they would be voting if they controlled their more responsible parents. Which they don’t thank God. Those of you who have had teenagers will know what I am talking about. I’ve had 4 and still have a 19 year old who is CLUELESS. My 28 and 29 year olds are showing promise. So you know the reason the entire board of supervisors wants 16 and 17 year olds to vote is because they are CONFIDENT they will be persuaded to vote in favor of the STATE. What the SFLP gets from this is VERY unclear unless we are playing some kind of 4th dimensional chess game where we feel the obvious is not as obvious as it seems. Please explain it to me. Are we hoping and praying the 16 and 17 year old kids will see that Libertarians are in their camp? And that they will appreciate that enough to join our ranks. FANTASYLAND. Our endorsement will be swept under the rug and never discussed. 16 and 17 year olds are not even going to LOOK at the Ballot Handbook.

I want to hear from Michael Edelstein who voted against during our meeting.

Mike

From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 6:26 PM
To: LPSF Activist List <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>; Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>; Jeffrey Yunes <jeff@yunes.us>; Gregory Richard Michael <greg.michael02@gmail.com>
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Language of 16/17y.o. Vote Measure

Hi everyone,

Here is a link to the language of proposed charter amendment "16 and 17 year olds voting in municipal elections": https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/20200717_16and17YearOldsVotingInMunicipalElections.pdf

I got it from https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures

For more background on this issue, see https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-2016-11/prop-f-local-voting-age

Rather than endorse the measure, I move that the lpsf recommend a yes vote.

-Richard

__._,_.___
Posted by: Francoise Fielding <mdm2548@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/conversations/messages/15784;_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2ZhNWNxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBG1zZ0lkAzE1Nzg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTU5NTMwMTUxOA--?act=reply&messageNum=15784> • Reply to sender <mailto:mdm2548@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blpsf-activists%5D%20Language%20of%2016%2F17y%2Eo%2E%20Vote%20Measure> • Reply to group <mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blpsf-activists%5D%20Language%20of%2016%2F17y%2Eo%2E%20Vote%20Measure> • Start a New Topic <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJla283Y2hlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTU5NTMwMTUxOA--> • Messages in this topic <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/conversations/topics/15780;_ylc=X3oDMTM2NmtoZmtuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBG1zZ0lkAzE1Nzg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTU5NTMwMTUxOAR0cGNJZAMxNTc4MA--> (5)
VISIT YOUR GROUP <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOWxuNGptBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTU5NTMwMTUxOA-->
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNTVxaGVwBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNTk1MzAxNTE4>• Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • Unsubscribe <mailto:lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>

.

__,_._,___

Michael,

16 and 17 year olds work and pay taxes. You don't think they're entitled to
have a say in where their hard earned tax dollars go?

As far as limiting suffrage, would you want to prevent women from voting
too since they would also be likely to support central planning (vote
Democratic)?

None of my kids worked and paid taxes at 16 and 17. While it is legal for 14 year olds to work, every worker under 18 needs a special work permit as does their employer.

https://www.thebalanceeveryday.com/legal-working-age-in-california-2085387

As a practical matter, almost NO kids under 18 work.

Mike

Interesting question, Françoise.

I look at it this way: suppose a thief steals your $1000. You can vote on whether he uses it to buy fentanyl or crack.

Seems kind of irrelevant and a distraction from the major issue.

(Not that I’m calling the State a thief.)

Michael,

16 and 17 year olds work and pay taxes. You don't think they're entitled to have a say in where their hard earned tax dollars go?

As far as limiting suffrage, would you want to prevent women from voting too since they would also be likely to support central planning (vote Democratic)?

Hi Françoise,

With what “thoughtful decisions” pass as currently, I’m wary of “thoughtful decisions” running my life. The fewer the better.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
www.TheREBT.Life <http://www.therebt.life/>
www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>

Co-author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks, addiction

As a mother with a 38 and 40 year I am also against 16 and 17 year olds voting. No way were my kids or any of their friends able to make a thoughtful considered decision at that age

Françoise

Yes. I appreciate your correction, Mike.

Sorry, Richard. I know your name is not Françoise.

Warm regards, Michael

I second

Mike

Mike,

  Thanks for your thoughts, and thanks Richard for posting the text of the measure and getting the conversation started here. I've read the text related to the measure and it seems straightforward (appears to do what it advertises without any hidden poison pills).

  My view is that we should strongly support allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote. Here are some thoughts on why...

  I don't think we can or should assume that everything the Board of Supervisors does is bad, or is done from bad motives. That's a form of what might be called "reactive politics", i.e. politics based not on principle, but on reacting to what others are doing or expected to do based upon whether we see a particular actor or actors, or their opponents, as being on "our side" or not. An example of "reactive politics" which I think has historically plagued our movement has been to be too reflexively defensive of corporations and big business, mostly on the basis of seeing these institutions being attacked by people we've seen as anti-freedom or our political opponents (as well as from the particular influence of Ayn Rand, who I think was herself influenced by reactive politics).

  An irony of reactive politics is that its assumptions can in fact alienate people and groups who wouldn't necessarily have been alienated otherwise. The Republican Party has largely shot itself in the foot this way regarding immigration: They tend to oppose immigration and immigrant rights in some large part because they assume immigrants are going to vote Democrat (I've frequently heard this argument from them), and that very opposition tends to make their fear much more of a reality than it would've been otherwise – immigrants are less likely to vote for those who visibly oppose their rights.

  With regard to this measure, it seems unlikely to me that any SF Supervisors asked themselves, "Are these people likely to vote in favor of or against the State"? If they had some practical, reactive politics question like that in mind, I think it's much more likely to have been something like, "Are these people likely to vote moderate or progressive?" That is the divide that carries the most practical weight in San Francisco politics, although from a libertarian perspective I don't think the answer is terribly important, since neither faction (moderate nor progressive) seems to be consistently more pro-freedom than the other.

  But as they voted unanimously to put the measure on the ballot, probably that was not the Supervisors' main consideration. If it had been, you would likely have seen one faction (most likely the moderates) opposing it. While they all ended up voting for it, I note that of the two names not listed as sponsors of the measure, one is recognized as part of the moderate faction (Catherine Stefani) and the other the progressive faction (Aaron Peskin).

  Of course this doesn't mean the Supervisors' motives were good. They may be cynically hoping to nudge young people more in their direction politically by putting forward something they could expect Republicans or conservatives to oppose. They may have simply been responding to lobbying or pressure from local political actors like members of the Youth Rights Commission.

  But regardless of their motives, we shouldn't allow those motives to dictate our position. In terms of correctly and faithfully applying libertarian ideas, the proper libertarian position on young people being allowed to vote seems crystal clear to me.

  Libertarianism is in part about ensuring that people are legally recognized and treated as individuals, not discriminated against by the State simply based on characteristics like age, race, sex, etc. Even if we knew for a fact (which of course we do not) that younger voters are more likely to vote in an anti-libertarian or statist manner than older voters, this would not justify discriminating against them as a group, because it would be unfairly and wrongly discriminating against individuals in the group who do not fit that pattern.

  If a young person is a minor, and physically/mentally capable of participating in an election, whether they in fact vote should be up to them and their parents or guardians, not the State. If they are legally independent, they should be able to vote without anyone's permission. There is also the fact that young people, like everyone else, are being taxed. Thus, as with undocumented migrants, to deny them the vote is to engage in the same practice that led to one of the rallying cries of the war for American independence, "No Taxation Without Representation!" While all taxation imposed without individual consent is wrong, imposing taxes on people who have no legal ability to participate in the democratic elections by which those imposing the taxes are chosen is particularly egregious.

  Besides being consistent with our principles, I think supporting the rights of minors is good politics for us. It's a cliché but true that young people are the future. When I'm speaking with them on behalf of the Libertarian Party, I want to be able to tell them about how Libertarians have supported their rights, and as they make their first choices about how to politically identify and vote, decisions which may affect their choices for many years or even throughout their lives, encourage them see us as allies, not opponents, of their personal interests. And one bit of practical political evidence – in my runs for office here in SF I haven't fared so well with the overall electorate, but both times I ran for School Board, I came in first place among SF high school students who voted for School Board members in mock elections!

  Perhaps even more importantly than mere political advantage to the LP though, I think supporting young people's right to vote makes strategic sense in terms of advancing the cause of freedom for which we stand. Sooner or later, young people are likely to be at the forefront of anti-statist change, even if that may not necessarily be true right here and now. A good current example is Hong Kong, where the resistance to authoritarian CCP rule is disproportionately youth-driven. Older people tend to run whatever establishment is in power, and historically young people have often been the main agents of change against these establishments. This was also true in the aforementioned American war for Independence.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

I endorse the rights of all 16 and 17 year olds who have a job and pay taxes to vote. And we make that statement. That is their ticket to politics.

Most measures have economic consequences. If the voters have no "skin in the game", they ideally shouldn't have the right to vote.

Note that ALL the recent bond measures are passing on the tax increases to renters. I attribute the fact they are being passed by renters is that 1) Landlords are too lazy to figure it out 2) Voters don't read the measures thoroughly.

That alone should be of concern.

Mike

We're just engaging in online discussion, there's no need to invoke parliamentary procedures here.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

Michael.....thanks for your input. Another country heard from. Smile.

Mike

But we're not in a meeting, Richard. Under our current rules only officers can vote on stuff between meetings. We still have to revise the bylaws to allow for general membership voting, and establish a mechanism or framework for that to take place. So there isn't any formal motion on the table.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

Again I think the libertarian position on this is crystal clear: Nobody should be required to have a government license in order to drive a vehicle. I don't believe individual rights are, or should be, based on statistical probabilities measured across groups. If, hypothetically speaking, just one individual dolphin, monkey, tree, or whatever was conclusively shown to have human levels of awareness (e.g. capacity for suffering, intelligence) I think we would be morally bound to legally grant it human levels of rights, even if no other members of its species showed similar sentience.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

So whether it is government or some other agency who determines it, you seem to be arguing for a fitness test....
Again, I say, why stop at 16? There are probably some 8 year olds who know more civics stuff than the average American
Not difficult since only 32 % of Americans can name the 3 branches of government...

OK….this discussion is mental masturbation. The measure is already written. What does the LPSF get from supporting it? What does it lose if it doesn’t?

Mike