Qualified Nov. 8 state ballot initiatives assigned numbers Prop. 73 to Prop. 80

Discussion
1

At first glance, Propositions 75, 76, and 77 appear very promising, and 79 and 80 appear very detrimental, with 73, 74 and 78 falling somewhere in the middle. By the standards of what usually appears on the ballot, I think that's not such a bad ratio. Schwarzenegger may not be a libertarian, but it's nice to see he's good for something (two of the three positive measures have his support and probably wouldn't be on the ballot if it wasn't for him). The Cato Institute even ranks him as the nation's best governor in a recently-released fiscal policy ranking (see http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa537/governorsreportcardtable.html).

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

Ballot measures will be Propositions 73 to 80
The Associated Press
Last Updated 7:12 am PDT Thursday, July 7, 2005
SACRAMENTO (AP) - The secretary of state's office assigned proposition numbers to eight initiatives that qualified for the Nov. 8 special election ballot.

There could be additional proposals on the ballot if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers compromise on three measures backed by the Republican governor.

Elections officials haven't determined the deadline for those agreements, Nghia Nguyen Demovic, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office, said Wednesday.

The eight initiatives on the ballot are:

-Proposition 73 would require notifying parents when a minor seeks an abortion, unless there's a medical emergency or a judge waives the requirement.

-Proposition 74 would extend the probation period for new teachers from two to five years. It's one of three measures endorsed by Schwarzenegger.

-Proposition 75 would require public employee unions to get annual written permission from members to use dues for campaign contributions.

-Proposition 76 would limit state spending, alter minimum school funding requirements, require the governor to cut appropriations in certain circumstances and impose prior year appropriations when there's a budget deadlock in the Legislature. It's also supported by Schwarzenegger.

-Proposition 77 is Schwarzenegger's attempt to take the power to draw legislative and congressional districts away from the Legislature and give it to a panel of three retired judges.

-Proposition 78 is a measure promoted by drug manufacturers to provide voluntary prescription drug discounts.

-Proposition 79 would require prescription drug discounts for low-income residents. It's supported by a number of labor unions and opposed by drug companies.

-Proposition 80 would require electricity providers to be regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. The measure is supported by consumer advocates who believe the deregulation of California's utilities helped cause the state's power crisis in 2001.

2

  At first glance, Propositions 75, 76, and 77 appear very

promising,

-Proposition 75 would require public employee unions to get annual
written permission from members to use dues for campaign

contributions.

Is this a good thing? It is government regulation (of a union) isn't
it? I thought libertarians opposed government regulation.

It's true that this would cut government costs. But then why not
require that all corporations that do business with the state get
written permission from shareholders to use profits for lobbying?
Wouldn't this be analogous? Is it fair to just target (and regulate)
unions and not corporations?

3

Hi Franklin,

  If there was a measure on the ballot requiring corporations that do business with the state to get written permission from shareholders to use profits for lobbying, would you support it?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

4

I'm not sure. Of course my first preference would be a state
government so small that this isn't an issue. My second preference
would be consistency so that the same rules apply to everyone doing
business with the state. So I am opposed to proposition 75 because it
singles out unions. I am honestly not sure how I vote on a
proposition that applied these rules equally to unions and
corporations.

Hi Franklin,

  If there was a measure on the ballot requiring corporations that

do

business with the state to get written permission from shareholders

to

5

Hi Franklin,

Welcome back.

I know so many people who cannot work at their trade without
belonging to a union; however, no one needs to purchase corporate
stock or even do business with corporations to survive (for example,
my husband Bart goes out of his way to purchase goods from providers
other than corporations). So, the comparison between unions and
corporations, in my opinion is not very straight forward.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Franklin Schmidt"
<fschmidt@g...> wrote:

I'm not sure. Of course my first preference would be a state
government so small that this isn't an issue. My second preference
would be consistency so that the same rules apply to everyone doing
business with the state. So I am opposed to proposition 75 because

it

singles out unions. I am honestly not sure how I vote on a
proposition that applied these rules equally to unions and
corporations.

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>

wrote:

> Hi Franklin,
>
> If there was a measure on the ballot requiring corporations

that

do
> business with the state to get written permission from

shareholders

6

This one is kind of sticky. Since CA is not a 'right-to-work state',
the unions have been able to require all state employees be
dues-paying members. If the union did not have this stranglehold on
our employees, I wouldn't support meddling in their affairs. At this
point I'm leaning toward supporting it.

With regard to your anti-corporate comments, I thought it might be
useful to share a less principled, more practical example. My know a
fellow who owns a small tobacco store. I hope you would agree that
it's an honest way to make a living, his customers being addicts not
withstanding. He had it incorporated for two reasons. The first is a
tax advantage. The second is litigation. I'm told the next wave of
victimization involves suing retailers for not explicitly warning each
customer that the product may cause health problems. I believe there
are juries who so hate tobacco that they would side with such a
plaintiff. If that happens, he might lose his livelihood, but at
least he would still have his house.

As others have said, you might not find a lot of allies in the LP for
that particular issue. However, it sounds like on the whole the LP
might be a better fit for you than the DNC. Honestly, mainstream Dems
are certainly not anti-corporation either.

Bear in mind that the people who are most active in the party tend to
be our hard line purists. I suspect that a large percentage of our
less visible members generally agree with the platform but not every
single issue. I think that's okay. Libertarianism is not only for
Rand fans and economics geeks. If you want a lot less government, and
can cope with the hostility of some of our higher profile members on
positions they see as inconsistent with principle, I would encourage
you to join the LP.

-Morey

7

Morey,

  Excellent comments, I concur. Though I have decidedly mixed feelings about corporations, I think I support limited liability. The legal system is completely out of control in the United States, and I feel like anything that reigns in the power of lawyers right now deserves thoughtful consideration on that basis alone.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

8

Actually I was asking whether you would support a similar measure singling out corporations instead of unions.

  Personally I would favor applying something like Proposition 75 to corporations, even though the case against unions making non-consensual contributions with member dues looks stronger to me than does the case against corporations doing the same with corporate assets that ultimately belong to shareholders.

  Besides the distinctions Sarosh mentioned, I believe that the current funding of union political contributions has much more of the character of taking money directly out of the ordinary working guy's (or gal's) pocket than does corporate giving.

  Does my support for applying similar restrictions on both institutions, despite what I see as distinct differences that make the restrictions more easily justified in the case of unions, clear me of charges of pro-corporate bias in your eyes? 8)

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

I'm not sure. Of course my first preference would be a state
government so small that this isn't an issue. My second preference
would be consistency so that the same rules apply to everyone doing
business with the state. So I am opposed to proposition 75 because it
singles out unions. I am honestly not sure how I vote on a
proposition that applied these rules equally to unions and
corporations.

> Hi Franklin,
>
> If there was a measure on the ballot requiring corporations that
do
> business with the state to get written permission from shareholders
to
> use profits for lobbying, would you support it?
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

9

I think it is easier to avoid belonging to a union than it is to avoid
doing business with corporations (as employee or consumer), don't you
agree?

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...>
wrote:

10

Not if you happen to be a teacher, musician, radio broadcaster, auto
assembly worker......

But you are correct, Franklin, if you mean that one can always change
professions or become self employed.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Franklin Schmidt"
<fschmidt@g...> wrote:

I think it is easier to avoid belonging to a union than it is to

avoid

doing business with corporations (as employee or consumer), don't

you

agree?

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry"

<amarcyb@h...>

wrote:
>
> Hi Franklin,
>
> Welcome back.
>
> I know so many people who cannot work at their trade without
> belonging to a union; however, no one needs to purchase

corporate

> stock or even do business with corporations to survive (for

example,

> my husband Bart goes out of his way to purchase goods from

providers

11

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Morey Straus <morey.straus@g...>
wrote:

This one is kind of sticky. Since CA is not a 'right-to-work state',
the unions have been able to require all state employees be
dues-paying members. If the union did not have this stranglehold on
our employees, I wouldn't support meddling in their affairs. At this
point I'm leaning toward supporting it.

The argument that government workers must belong to a union seems
contradicted here:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/against75.pdf

"No public employee in California can be forced to become a member of
a union. Non-members pay fees to the union for collective bargaining
services, but the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that
unions cannot use these fees for political purposes. The union must
send financial statements to the worker to ensure that no unauthorized
fees are used for politics. Today, 25% of state employees contribute
no money to their union’s political activities."

I don't know enough about the law to know if this is correct. Does
anyone here know?

Regarding your friend selling tobacco, I don't think it would be such
a bad thing if tobacco sellers had to get buyers to sign a statement
saying that they are aware of the risks of smoking tobacco, and that
they waive their right to sue for this. Eliminating limited liability
and eliminating drug laws would result in a system where drugs are
available but sellers would have to get buyers to sign a statement
saying that the buyer is aware of the risks of using the drug. This
strikes me as a good balanced solution.

12

  Actually I was asking whether you would support a similar measure
singling out corporations instead of unions.

No, I would not. I value fairness over abstract political ideals or
choosing sides.

  Does my support for applying similar restrictions on both
institutions, despite what I see as distinct differences that make the
restrictions more easily justified in the case of unions, clear me of
charges of pro-corporate bias in your eyes? 8)

Yes it does, but it proves you guilty of another libertarian
affliction, putting abstract ideals above fairness. The general
question is should one support a proposal to increase freedom for some
subset of the population. In my opinion, the answer should be "no" if
this proposal gives this subset some unfair advantage over everyone
else. It is better to reject the unfair proposal and push for a
fairer and broader proposal to increase freedom universally. The
libertarian party consistently chooses ideals over fairness, and this,
justifiably, gives the libertarian party a reputation of being
cold-hearted right-wingers.

13

Franklin,

  If workers are forced to pay fees to a union for collective bargaining services whether they want such services or not, isn't that essentially the same kind of thing as forcing workers to belong to a union? Either way it's coercion.

  And right now isn't it true that it's typically (always?) only one union per workplace allowed? That's like saying only one auto repair shop per town. Shouldn't workers be free to start or join as many different unions as they like, instead of having to deal with one particular union or go unrepresented?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

14

Franklin,

  I admire your consistency with regard to not supporting a measure similar to Proposition 75 that singled out corporations instead of unions. Though I have to wonder whether you'd be spending as much time and effort opposing that measure as you are this one! It's hard to be perfectly fair and equal...

   I also wonder at your argument that a proposal which would increase freedom for some subset of the population should be rejected in favor of pushing for a fairer and broader proposal to increase freedom universally. By this logic, libertarians should oppose tax cut plans that would decrease taxes only for one subset of the world population (e.g. people in the United States), and insist that any tax cut apply not just to Americans, but to Swedes, Paraguayans, Chinese, etc., in order to avoid giving Americans an unfair advantage over everyone else.

  Now you don't want to put an abstract ideal like nationalism over fairness like a cold-hearted right-winger, do you? 8)

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

15

If workers are forced to pay fees to a union for collective bargaining
services whether they want such services or not, isn't that essentially
the same kind of thing as forcing workers to belong to a union? Either
way it's coercion.

The issue of proposition 75 is about political funding, and this area,
workers are not forced to pay. They are forced to support the union
if they want a job at a union shop. If they don't want to support
unions, they shouldn't work at a unionized company.

And right now isn't it true that it's typically (always?) only one
union per workplace allowed? That's like saying only one auto repair
shop per town. Shouldn't workers be free to start or join as many
different unions as they like, instead of having to deal with one
particular union or go unrepresented?

The unionizing process is over-regulated. That is why there aren't
more unions. But obviously a union will only have leverage on a
company if it can be the exclusive representative of some critical
niche of workers for that company. That is why unions naturally fight
for exclusive contracts. But the kind of contract the union gets
should be negotiated in a free market without government interference.

16

I admire your consistency with regard to not supporting a measure
similar to Proposition 75 that singled out corporations instead of
unions. Though I have to wonder whether you'd be spending as much time
and effort opposing that measure as you are this one!

This is a question I will not have to answer in practice anytime soon
because our political system now only produces measures that benefit
corporations at the expense of everyone else. There was a time when
businesses were unfairly targeted, and that is why I voted for Reagan.
But times have changed.

I also wonder at your argument that a proposal which would increase
freedom for some subset of the population should be rejected in favor
of pushing for a fairer and broader proposal to increase freedom
universally. By this logic, libertarians should oppose tax cut plans
that would decrease taxes only for one subset of the world population
(e.g. people in the United States), and insist that any tax cut apply
not just to Americans, but to Swedes, Paraguayans, Chinese, etc., in
order to avoid giving Americans an unfair advantage over everyone else.

The job of any government is to serve its constituents. The
constituents in effect hire the government to protect their interests.
So what you describe isn't the same fairness issue. Think of the
board of directors of a corporation. Their job is to look after the
interests of the shareholders. But they also have an obligation to be
fair, and not to benefit one group of shareholders over another. They
have no such obligation to non-shareholders. The same thinking
applies in my mind to civic government.

Now you don't want to put an abstract ideal like nationalism over
fairness like a cold-hearted right-winger, do you? 8)

Nationalism isn't exactly considered an abstract ideal.