Starchild

So, Proposition K won. I didn’t vote for it, nor did most westside residents apparently, but it passed. The ballot measure promised to replace the stretch of the Great Highway from Fulton to Lincoln with a park. But it didn’t say what kind of park. So let’s think about this!

San Francisco today suffers from a lack of imagination. Sure, people still do creative work here – the AI revolution bears witness to that. But when it comes to civic projects, we’ve gotten so used to letting government clog everything up with masses of regulatory red tape that we’ve forgotten how to dream big.

If you've spent any significant time engaged in libertarian activism, or even if you haven't, you've probably heard people say things like, "Well, I have a life, I don't have time to play activist", or "those people are losers without real jobs or responsibilities", etc. I can't count how many times I've heard non-activists make comments like these in an effort to dismiss activists and their efforts. Living in the SF Bay Area where most people are politically on the left, I most often hear such complaints voiced against left-wing activists (often by right-wingers who are quite statist and not necessarily contributing much of meaning to society themselves), but it sounds much the same when they are voiced by statists against libertarians.

When I learned that LP presidential contender Chase Oliver had received the green light to be the first alternative party presidential candidate to speak at the famed Political Soapbox event at the Iowa State Fair, I realized that some of the local press might recognize this as a newsworthy story and give some coverage. Especially the local LGBTQ press, given that Chase happens to be gay. 

Since Chesa Boudin was narrowly elected (with the LPSF's support!) as San Francisco district attorney in November 2019 over the mayor's interim DA appointee Suzy Loftus, who was heavily backed by the San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) and other law enforcement interests, there have been plenty of folks unhappy with that outcome.

I heard the same thing about the controversial new Georgia voting law (the "Election Integrity Act of 2021") that most of you probably have – that it criminalizes giving water to people waiting in line to vote. That part is what many in the media seem to want to focus on. Taken out of context, it definitely sounds like the GOP carrying vote suppression to an utterly petty level.

Then I read what that part of the legislation, which applies within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of any voter at a polling place, actually says:

Proposition A – NO. This $960 million bond measure (the estimated cost to taxpayers of borrowing $487.5 million after all the interest and costs are paid) promises everything but the kitchen sink. Prop. A would supposedly fund "investments" (the Voter Information Pamphlet's biased language) in "supportive housing facilities", shelters, parks, recreation facilities, facilities for "persons experiencing mental health challenges", streets, etc. All things that could be paid for out of the city government's $13.7 billion regular budget (a budget larger than those of many states and even most countries!).

            Longtime freedom-oriented observers of politics in the City by the Bay won’t be greatly surprised that exactly none of the local measures on the March 3 ballot are worth supporting. The Libertarian Party of San Francisco recommends voting NO on all five. Here’s some brief thoughts on why:

Proposition A – $845 million City College “Job Training, Repair and Earthquake Safety” bond

According to a faculty union representing teachers at City College, spending on administration has grown to comprise 10% of the school’s personnel costs, up from 7% just five years ago.

      Politicians and bureaucrats certainly give people plenty of good reasons to hate them, but from time to time you have to sympathize with them, because in their power-addiction, serving as cogs in the leviathan they have created, they victimize themselves too.

      Just because they are oppressing us from the top of the pyramid doesn't mean that most of the individuals running government necessarily have a good quality of life. I don't think most people would actually enjoy doing their jobs. They may have power, but the daily grind of exercising it, cranking out the sausage on a day-to-day basis, can't be very enjoyable for most of them. They're like junkies who keep chasing after that power fix even though it's destroying their lives.

     Here are a few insights I've found in my time as a libertarian (pro-freedom) activist which I consider valuable and thought I'd share in the hope that others may find them useful...

• If you find yourself debating or arguing with someone (in person, online, or wherever) whose stance in the conversation is more pro-freedom on the particular topic or issue being discussed than yours, change the topic or leave the conversation. If you want to debate that issue, go find another conversation in which the person or people you're debating are less pro-freedom on it than you are. In this way, you can ensure that your advocacy is on the side of freedom, not against it.

The philosopher Confucius was reportedly once asked what he would do if he were a governor. He responded that he would first "rectify the names" to make words correspond to reality, for "If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish."

    I'm not precisely sure what the ancient Chinese sage meant by that, or what examples he may have had in mind, but I've thought one possible interpretation of this quote is that language must not be allowed to be abused in such ways that speech grows full of dishonesty and contradictions, or else there won't be a basis for efficient human action. Perhaps a kind of social equivalent to how free market economists talk about State central planners not being able to efficiently run an economy because they do not have access to accurate price signals.

    These thoughts were provoked by an ad for Sprint cellphone service that I heard earlier this evening. In the ad, a man comes on and says something along the lines of, "Oh great, another wireless ad. You're probably sick of all these phone ads with all their confusing terms about their networks and offers and blah blah blah. But Sprint is going to do something different." Then he quotes a monthly price and basically says if you don't like it after a month you can have 100% of your money back, guaranteed. A few more details are conveyed in a similarly reassuring tone.