Essential Legal Principles For A Voluntaryist Society

Does a comprehensive model legal code exist for a voluntaryist society?   If not, it is far past time to produce one.  Or more perhaps competing model codes could be developed for adoption and use by different general voluntary citizenship organizations.  Perhaps this has already been done and I am ignorant or forgetful of such codes.  If you are aware of any examples please point them out.

The non-aggression principle works very well as a foundational element for libertarian political philosophies, but has its limitations as a legal principle for organized groups.  It simply lacks the necessary details.  Legal principles need to operate as axioms for solving complex problems of dispute resolution and deterrence of wrongdoing in constantly evolving societies.  Such principles should provide predictability to enable the members of the society to quickly and accurately assess the risks and rewards of different activities, and should generally produce just outcomes.  Here are some suggestions:


No Monopoly On Services:
Any person or organization using coercion or fraud to monopolize the provision of any good or service, including the enforcement of law or adjudication, is an aggressor.

Corporations and Agents:
No entity may exercise any right in excess of held by its constituents, or avoid any obligation to which its constituents are subject.  No person may escape liability for an action by acting through another entity.

Civil/Criminal:  A civil complaint arises out of an action performed without an intent or justification for aggression against another (or reckless disregard).  A criminal complaint arises out of an act performed with an intent to aggress against another.  The subject of a complaint (defendant) is the person performing the action that gave rise to the complaint.


Just Restitution:  For a civil complaint, just restitution is limited to what is needed to reverse or repair the harm caused by the action that is the basis for the complaint, including enforcement costs.  Just restitution for a criminal complaint includes civil restitution, plus whatever enforcement is reasonably necessary to prevent future aggression by the actor.  If the harm is of an nature that cannot be reversed or repaired, the actor shall be liable for restitution in proportion to the gravity of the harm and the actor's culpability in causing the harm.

Restitution, to whom paid:
All restitution shall be paid first to the victim (or family/dependents) until the harm is fully compensated, less what is reasonably necessary to pay enforcement costs.  Excess restitution shall be refunded to the payer.

Who May Bring A Complaint:  If there is a victim able to bring a complaint, only the victim, or the victim's assignee, may bring the complaint.  If there is no victim able to bring or assign a complaint, a nominee or guardian may bring the complaint on behalf of the person or persons harmed.

Voluntary Resolution:
All complaints may be resolved by agreement between defendant and victim.

Adjudication: all complaints not resolved by agreement may be adjudicated to obtain a judgement of enforcement.  Adjudication requires a neutral judge and due process of law, including at least notice and opportunity to confront the complainant, neutral witnesses and a record.  Any judgement by a process other than adjudication is unenforceable.

Harm:
Harm is the deprivation of life, health, liberty or property.  Harm cannot be suffered, except by a person.  A person may suffer harm resulting from actions upon the person's property. 

Tort:
Every person shall be liable for harm caused by any action creating an unreasonable risk of harm to another, in proportion to the harm caused.  One who initiates an unforced action bears the risks thereof.

Permissible use of force in defense:
No person shall be liable for harm caused to another, or to another's property, for use of force to the extent reasonably necessary to defend against aggression initiated by the other, unless the aggression is reasonably necessary for enforcement of an adjudicated claim (a judgement).

Contracts:  A contract is a special form of agreement between two or more persons party to the agreement, which is enforceable by adjudication of a civil complaint.  No contract can exist without a clear record of intent to form a contract by all parties to it and an exchange of value.

Enforcement:  Enforcement is aggression to collect just restitution for a complaint or reasonably necessary to prevent future aggression by one convicted of a criminal complaint, after adjudication.

Enforcement liability:  Enforcers shall be liable for aggression, but only to the extent the aggression is in excess of what is reasonably necessary for enforcement of an adjudicated complaint.

Minority Status: A person has minority status between birth [__ months gestation][conception][heartbeat][mother's womb-independence] and __ years of age.  A minor cannot bring a complaint unless joined by the minor's guardian.

This could go on much longer, and looking back at what I've written I already want to make changes.  But it's a start and worth putting out there.

Free Banking

Proposals to tax deposits in Cyprus to fund bank bailouts have provoked a rash of articles pointing out that inflation (or more exactly, systematic currency debasement by government-controlled central banks) is essentially the same thing as a deposit tax.  That's indisputably true.

But there's much else that is rotten in Cyprus, and in the EU, and in the USA, and perhaps wherever central banks operate under government control.  We should not stop short of clearly identifying the main problem: deposit insurance and other coercive, anti-competitive meddling in the financial markets by governments.  Without abolishing such progressive/fascist constructs, the perverse and destructive phenomenon of forcing the general public to subsidize and insure the risky investments of wealthy elites through deposit taxes, tax-funded bailouts and massive currency debasement will continue.  The gulf between wealthy elites and the poor will continue to widen, the middle class will continue to shrink, and malinvestment will continue to destroy capital, until sustainable growth is no longer possible and systemic decline sets in. 

There is a better system: free banking.  In a voluntary market banking system, the principle of "depositor beware" would apply: those that chased higher interest rate on their deposits would suffer a greater risk of total loss, instead of forcing those who just want to keep their principle safe to subsidize the risky lending practices of others.  Meanwhile, risk-averse savers might keep their savings "in their mattresses" or pay a non-fractional reserve bank for storage, ATM, checking and/or debit card services.

Crowd-lending sites like "lendingclub.com" provide a glimpse of how lending can work for micro-lenders in a voluntary market.  Anyone wishing to generate interest on their savings can conveniently diversify their lending by contributing small amounts of capital to fund a portfolio of small loans made to members of the club.   Earned interest rates are currently in the range of about 5-11%, depending on the investment grade of micro-loans invested in.  Those chasing interest the old-fashioned way in a free system could just buy a CD at their non-fractional reserve bank, which the bank could lend for a term not exceeding that of the CD.  The traditional bond market would remain available, and financial services would compete to make it more accessible and useful to small savers and investors.

In a free banking system, central banks would have no reason to exist, and if existing, would be prohibited from buying government, mortgage or other politically favored bonds with newly created money.  Nor would governments be permitted or capable of bailing out industries while favoring their cronies over bondholders, as in the auto industry bailouts.  Government deposit insurance would not exist.  In a free system, fractional reserve banks would not be prohibited, but would have to compete with non-fractional reserve banks, loan aggregators, insurance companies and other financial service companies for deposits.  Fractional reserve banking would likely be uncompetitive, in the long run, without the government protection it currently enjoys.  It adds little or no value to a lender or micro-lender seeking interest on funds available to lend, merely playing the role of a middle man.  It's more efficient for lenders to control their risks by purchasing a selected portfolio of bonds directly.  In a free system, such lending would be quite easy and efficient to do even for very small lenders, as crowd funding technology has already demonstrated.

It's hard to see how society transitions to a totally free banking system without first experiencing a total economic collapse followed by severe depressions and massive human suffering.  Perhaps such outcomes are inevitable.  There may be just too many powerful interests invested in the status quo to permit gradual reforms leading to a freer, more stable banking system.  More hopeful visionaries such as Ron Paul have suggested a constructive alternative: enable competitive currencies and more competition in diverse forms of banking -- more freedom to innovate in the financial system.  Absent government prohibition, it's likely that alternatives such as Bitcoin, micro lending clubs, mutual aid societies, and many other forms of peaceful and voluntary cooperation in financial transactions would grow from the rich soil of freedom.  Many of these free institutions would survive to carry humanity forward when the progressive/fascist social paradigm finally collapses or gradually falls out of favor.  Or so one can hope. 

If the idea of free banking system seems unworkable to you, you might pick up "The Case Against The Fed" by Murray Rothbard.  It's an easy read and arguably still the best introduction to modern central banking out there.  It can be read in a weekend, and might transform your thinking on central banking almost that quickly.   "A History of Money and Banking in the United States," also by Rothbard, is an excellent follow on. Read them both!

Drone Law Scribble

Bob Wenzel over at EPJ provoked me to think about drone law a bit with this posting today: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/01/will-personal-drones-require-further.html

Here are my edited comments on his post, as a sort of note to myself to expand on the topic a bit when I get the chance.

Airspace and oceans are areas where Lockean-Rothbardian homesteading theory, as useful as it is, does not provide very satisfactory answers to the balance of rights that should be afforded to carriages in transit over or under private property as opposed to the land holders below or above the carriage.  Libertarians of the bleeding heart variety have some useful things to say about spaces that are not owned by anyone in particular, but it would require some research on my part to outline some of the prominent points of left-libertarian public space theory and relate them to the problem at hand.

Regarding flying drones, it seems to me that these should be permitted and legally protected (as property) from attack so long as not creating a nuisance, or posing an unreasonable risk of harm to any property owners below.  Spying on private property may be, at least under some circumstances, a nuisance that deprives the owner of the enjoyment of privacy that owning an expanse of rock or soil might reasonably expected to provide, although the nuances of that need some hashing out.  No distinction should be made between private or government drones.

Because the real estate property owner cannot determine, using present technology, whether or not a drone is spying on property below, real property owners should be permitted to bring down or otherwise disable any overflying drones owned by others, so long as they do not use an unreasonable amount of force in doing so.  Such drones should be protected (i.e., subject to no more than the minimal necessary trespass on chattel required to protect the land holder's rights) and returned to the rightful owners if possible to do so, presuming that the drones are not evidence of a violent crime.  What is "reasonable force" should depend on the circumstances and may change with time as drone-protection technology improves.  The burden of risk for overflying another person's land should belong to the drone operator, not the land holder, based on the principle that the drone operator is the one who decides to overfly the property of another and the land holder has no say in the matter.  One who intentionally and unilaterally initiates an unforced action should bear all the risks of doing so.

Aaron Sandusky Sentenced

Aaron Sandusky was sentenced to 10 years (the mandatory minimum sentence for what he was convicted of) + 5 probation today, for having wronged no one.  He is representing himself on appeal, and greatly in need of and deserving your support. If you believe than this is too harsh a sentence for operating a cannabis dispensary in accordance with state law, visit aaronsanduskylegalfund.com and donate what you can. 

Also check out the-human-solution.org, and join if you agree with supporting the "P.O.W.s for a plant."

"Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated."  Hebrews 3:13.  While this was written to admonish the early Christians to support those who were imprisoned for spreading their radical new faith, its moral force applies in any circumstance where those pursuing justice by breaking unjust laws are imprisoned.  We who support  the same just causes must not let our imprisoned fellows be forgotten.

The transcript of the sentencing hearing will be published.  I'll be watching for that and post a link when I can.

I attended the hearing this morning.  Sandusky's counsel (Roger Diamond) made various constitutional objections.  Of necessity these were short on precedent, which says more about the immoral state of American constitutional jurisprudence than the merits of the moralities at play.  The sole precedent relied on was "Loving v. Virginia" which invalidated state laws against interracial marriage; in that case, the defendants were given a suspended sentence of  one year and essentially ordered to stay out of Virginia.  Sadly, the US Supreme Court has already found, in "Gonzales v. Raich" that the Federal government can criminalize the growing of cannabis even for personal use.  To me, that is morally akin to banning interracial marriage or requiring all Jews to wear a yellow star, proving that "the law" on this point is morally bankrupt and deserves no respect.  Unfortunately, that plus mandatory minimum sentences also means that Aaron Sandusky will be spending the next ten years in a Federal "correctional" institute; violent felons routinely receive milder sentences.  His best hope at this point may be a repeal of federal prohibition and a presidential pardon.  There is a pardon petition started at:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-aaron-sanduskycase-cr12-00548-pa-man-currently-prison-facing-10-yrs-life-growing-medical/vwLY3swZ?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
About 20,000 more signatures are needed by January 16th.

Judge Percy Anderson went on a bit about Sandusky's supposed refusal to "take responsibility" for breaking the law.   Aaron Sandusky always conducted his medical cannabis operation openly and in compliance with state law, so he cannot have meant that Aaron sought to conceal his actions.   Perhaps what the Judge really meant is that Sandusky demanded a trial and has shown no remorse, believing the Federal prohibition against cannabis would not be enforced.  Perhaps to the Judge, losing at trial and refusing to bow down to the idol of "the law" are offenses deserving ten years in prison, never mind the virtue of the underlying actions of which the defendant stands accused.  Judge Anderson also threw in the old saw about drugs being tied to violent gangs, which was not apropos in this case where no violence was even alleged and all the cannabis sold was grown by Aaron Sandusky.  I would not expect the Judge to admit the truth -- that the very prohibition he defends is the cause of virtually all drug-related violence.  He is acting, after all, as the representative of the prison-industrial state, looking out for the welfare of the legions of federal employees whose jobs and pensions depend on maintaining the prohibition in effect.

There were only about 25 supporters of Mr. Sandusky there; the courtroom could have held much more.  Many of those in attendance (perhaps about half) had a personal connection to him.  Many were former clients of his C3 collective, who were generally elderly people with sweet and gentle dispositions.  Cases like these don't come around all that often, but there are a number of other people facing Federal prosecution and imprisonment for supplying cannabis in accordance with state law.  In an area as populous as Southern California, where medical cannabis is widely supported, it was disappointing to see so few people without a personal connection to Aaron Sandusky attend the hearing.  People going to prison for peacefully supplying cannabis need our support, even if it's just quietly attending a hearing.  Remember!

To Hell With Pubic (sic) Policy - No On Measure B

DO WE REALLY WANT THE LA COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN CHARGE OF OUR PUBIC POLICY?

(Actual text of proposed measure heading from yesonb website)

Polls reportedly show LA County voters 63% in favor of Measure B, which is being sold to votes as a requirement for porn actors to wear condoms.  That's not really what the measure is about.  Sadly too many voters are being fooled, once again, to vote for increases in taxes and regulations in the guise of protecting some supposedly helpless group.  As the measure itself notes, California regulations already require porn actors to wear condoms.  So there is absolutely no need for the County to enact its own condom requirement, even if one believes such regulations are needed.  In actuality, the main effect of Measure B would be to impose yet another occupational licensing requirement and potentially unlimited permit fees on anybody still foolish enough to produce porn flicks within L.A. County. 

Here is the part that imposes an unlimited permit fee on film producers:

So the sky is the limit on what may be charged; enough to pay salaries, overhead, expenses, health insurance, pensions, vacations, and other benefits for an untold number of County employees to trundle around the County making sure all of the rapidly dwindling number of porn shoots in the County have completed the proper written plans, posted the required notices on the set, and are all wearing the proper County-mandated condoms.  Are requirements for full-body condoms far behind?

Porn movies are not highly elaborate affairs and do not require the resources of a major studio to produce.  It's easy enough to throw a few cameras in a truck and drive to a nearby County with less onerous regulations, if only to avoid the burden of obtaining an L.A. County public health permit.  But that's not the only problem.  In the highly competitive world of porn production, the condom requirement changes the quality of the finished products.  Porn with condoms, shot in L.A. County, will be less desirable to most consumers of porn than porn sans condoms shot outside of the County.  People consume porn as escapist fantasy, and the presence of condoms only serves as a reminder that the promiscuous, no-strings attached sex being depicted is not as free and wild as the viewer might wish to fantasize.  One can deplore the escapist desires of porn consumers, but that is missing the point.  Fully-permitted porn with condoms is likely to be a money-losing proposition, and the proponents of Measure B are indulging their own statist fantasies to think otherwise.

So the main economic effect of passing Measure B will be to drive most of what remains of the porn movie industry out of the County.  Those who tolerate governmental interference in the free market might find this acceptable, if L.A. County were experiencing economic growth in other areas.  Obviously the County is generally speaking in the doldrums with no real relief in sight, and the effect of passing the Measure will be to further depress the local economy while swelling the County bureaucracy, even if only a little.

Another economic effect will be to discourage smaller producers from producing these sorts of films.  In general, regulatory burdens are regressive because they fall most heavily on smaller and less well-financed business.  Big businesses typically influence and support added regulatory burdens, because such burdens reduce competition and cement the dominance of the established players, as well as discourage innovation.  So if you are an anti-big business sort, you should not be comfortable voting for this measure.

Economic issues aside, there is also the matter of individual freedom.  Porn actors are adults engaging in consensual sex.  Their motivation may be unusual, in that most people do not engage in sex professionally and are not comfortable in making a public performance out of their sexual escapades.  But the motivations of the actors are personal to them and do not alter the essential character of the act.  So if the County or state can regulate sexual intercourse between consenting adults who happen to be filming their activity, what sexual behavior will it seek to regulate next?  Could the county regulate the wearing of condoms in other circumstances?  Because the vast majority of sexually transmitted disease is NOT spread by actors working in porn production, it would seem that the imposition of condom requirements in more general circumstances can't be far off.  I say, keep the county out of our pubic policy.  If you are going to vote, vote NO on Measure B.

Jake's Libertarian Voter's Guide To The 2012 California Propositions

There's a whole raft of propositions to vote against this November.  None of these were written by libertarians or for libertarians, and most of them deserve a vigorous punch of the "no" chad -- don't leave those chads a-hangin'!  Here's why, in numerical order:

Prop 30: Jerry Brown's Tax Increases.  Raises sales taxes .25% (3.45% increase over existing rates) and income taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year by about 10 to 33% over present rates, depending on the bracket.  Obviously, this is a horrible idea that will only serve to make California less likely to attract any investment or economic growth, with no offsetting benefits for the taxpayer.   Vote NO.

Prop 30: Two-Year Budget Cycle.  This is sponsored by the tax-loving technocrats at "California Forward" who are in favor of abolishing the 2/3 super-majority requirement for the legislature to increase taxes.  That's not in this bill, but these people can't be trusted.  This is a bill by Sacramento bureaucrats for Sacramento bureaucrats.  One, it would spare them the pain of dealing with state budgets on an annual basis by making budgeting a biennial process -- so, even less transparency, flexibility and accountability will attend the process.  More importantly, it sets up additional administrative requirements for local budgeting, and an optional "Community Strategic Action Plan" system in the California constitution, by which local governments that kowtow most effectively to Sacramento can achieve additional funding from a newly established "Performance and Accountability Trust Fund" funded out of general revenue.  This law just makes California governance more Byzantine and burdensome. It would increase administrative burdens at all levels of local government, and increase the power and influence of Sacramento at the local level.  A resounding NO!

Prop 32: Ban on corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates.  Hmm . . just look at the parties for and against this measure.  Currently about $8 million has been raised in support, $37 million opposing, almost all of the opposition money from various public sector unions.  This measure would bar any organization from extracting political donations from wages paid to the organizations members, without each member's individual consent.  Unions hate it because it would decrease their power and influence in politics, but it would not prevent any union members from voluntarily deducting from their paychecks to contribute to their union's favored political causes.  Don't believe the barrage of attack ads -- the only reason this won't reduce corporate political donations is because presently, ONLY unions are allowed to use mandatory dues for political contributions.  This proposition would give union members more control over their paychecks, so what's not to like?  A firm YES YES YES and say a prayer too.  Divine intervention may be needed to overcome the disparity in funding to get this proposition passed.

Prop 33: Car insurance rates can be based on a person's history of insurance coverage ("persistency discounts").  This could be viewed as a pro-free market rule, because it would remove one of the restrictions placed on California insurers by Proposition 103 in 1988, that is, the prohibition against loyalty ("persistency") discounts.  I don't know why insurers see this as important enough to put on the ballot a second time, after a similar measure (Prop. 17) lost narrowly in 2010.  Obviously, the restriction has impaired insurers (or some insurers) profitability somehow.  Sure, a gap in coverage correlates statistically to higher risk of an insurance claim being made, but why can't insurers compensate for that just by raising everybody's rates a little?  On the other hand, there is no reason why insurance companies should not be allowed to set rates that reflect actuarial risks.  Plus, the full text of the changes to the California Insurance Code is clear and concise, and without any apparent trapdoors that might reduce competition in the insurance markets.  A reasonably confident YES on this one.  But I will be very interested to hear Ted Brown's thoughts on this one before punching the ballot.

Prop. 34: End The Death Penalty.  This does a little more than its title says, but most of the curlicues seem acceptable, like requiring convicted murderers receiving life sentences to work, with money being paid into a victims' restitution fund.  Sure, this is institutionalized slavery, but only for convicted murderers, and at least nominally for the benefit of victim's families.  There is some justice in that.  "Give me liberty or give me death" is a fine slogan for violent revolutionaries and passionate martyrs, but in reality, state-sanctioned slavery conditioned on a murder conviction by a unanimous jury seems less offensive than state-sanctioned murder under the same conditions.  On the negative side, the proposition includes a gratuitous $100 million slush fund to the police state "to help solve more homicide and rape cases."  Forgive me if I am skeptical.  Why does a bill to eliminate the death penalty need to be accompanied by spending increases?  Isn't the California government in a budget crisis?  Nobody is getting executed in California anyway, so I am surprising myself by considering voting NO as a protest against the increased spending.  Still, I am leaning towards YES as it is long past time to strip California of the merely theatrical power to deliberately and sanctimoniously, with painstaking forethought, murder its citizens.   On balance, YES.

Prop. 35: Prohibition on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery.  Funny thing, human trafficking and sex slavery is already criminally illegal, so why do we need this proposition?  Norma Jean Almodovar and Starchild are among the very few opposed, so it might be reasonable for a libertarian to base one's opposition on the title alone plus the wisdom of Norma Jean and Starchild as against the madness of the herd.  The arguments in favor simply cite an unverified litany of horrors supposedly from "sex trafficking," none of which I have ever encountered or heard of from personal experience during a relatively long and unsheltered life in California.  On its face the proposition seems suspiciously like a power grab against anyone in any way involved with the sex trade, which has become a significant free-market activity in the state.  The vast majority of participants, however, are consenting adults.  Most of the actual text of the law seems more narrowly focused.  The most worrisome change may be in the definition of human trafficking: "Any person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, is guilty of human trafficking." This is a new and much broader definition than formerly applied.  What does it mean to "violate the personal liberty of another" and what is "forced labor or services"? Would any "violation of personal liberty" in connection with the providing of some service cause the person receiving the service to become a human trafficker?  For example, suppose an employer requires employees to report to work promptly at a certain time and remain on the job for certain hours, or else be fired, even though an employee protests.  Does that not involve a "violation of personal liberty"?  What about being required to wear a silly uniform?  Etc., etc.  The point is, the statute could be construed to make any employer or purchaser of services a human trafficker.  On the flip side, the rest of the law seems fairly narrowly focused, and could well be used against corrupt police who coerce prostitutes into sex acts in exchange for leniency.  However, the broad and ambiguous new definition of "human trafficking" is reason enough to oppose it.  Vote NO.

Prop. 36: Repeal of the "Three Strikes" Law.  This will restore more discretion in sentencing by limiting the third strike to "serious and violent" offenses.  The main arguments in favor are based on a supposed correlation to lower crime rates in California since the original three strikes law was passed.  I'm sorry, even if locking up some people for 25 years for petty offenses has reduced crime in California (which is doubtful), that doesn't make it good social policy or morally correct.  One could just as well justify locking up every other random person on the same basis.  "Restore the Three Strikes law to the public's original understanding by requiring life sentences only when a defendant's current conviction is for a violent or serious crime" seems like a fair characterization of this proposition.  Vote YES.

Prop. 37: Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food.  Perhaps the most controversial proposition on the ballot for libertarians.  Many support it as a truth-in-advertising requirement.  I've read the proposed statute and it does not seem that complex or onerous at first glance.  But read it carefully. I will not be voting for it, because it forces retailers to label food a certain way, and creates yet another civil enforcement industry suing businesses in California for reasons that have nothing to do with any actual harm to consumers.  Sure, there are already a host of labeling regulations on the books, and this would just be perhaps only another small requirement.  But that does not create a principled excuse to lay another straw on the camel's back.  Proponents of the requirement overlook the difficulty that many producers or sellers of food products, especially small ones, will encounter when importing food from jurisdictions that have no GMO labeling requirement.  How are all the ethnic food groceries and non-chain eateries in California going to comply with this requirement?  My guess is, not at all. Which will make them subject to civil enforcement wherein "the consumer bringing the action need not establish any specific damage from, or prove any reliance on, the alleged violation." Breathtaking.  This will be the ADA all over again, only magnified, and no doubt raise costs for consumers, drive small business and variety in food choices away from California, and enrich plaintiff's attorneys at the expense of small businesses and consumers.  A far better way to handle this issue is to simply allow producers to advertise their products as "GMO free" if they choose to do so.  False advertisers would be subject to existing laws against false advertising, fraud, and unfair business practices.  The free market would supply GMO-free labeled products to those consumers who demand them, without raising costs for consumers who don't really care.  A firm and principled NO.

Prop. 38: Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase.  A proposition curiously sponsored by confirmed tax raiser for California state schools.   Would increase income taxes even more than Jerry Brown's measure, and on a much broader base, and throw the newly taxed revenue all down the public education rat hole.  That's the ticket!  A reflexive NO vote, no analysis required.

Prop 39: Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses.  If this passes, it will actually be known as the "California Clean Energy Job Act" the major feature of which is the creation of a $550,000,000 slush fund called the "Clean Energy Job Creation Fund."   Obviously, this is merely another exercise in crony capitalism and government displacement of the free market.  I was going to analyze the details of the tax law change to see if a principled argument could be made for or against it on the basis of the non-aggression principle.  But spotting this prominent bit of pork at the top of the text just spared me the trouble of such a tedious exercise.  Clearly, a NO.

Prop. 40: Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan.  From Ballotpedia: "A 'Yes' vote approves, and a 'No' vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.  If the new districts are rejected, the State Senate district boundary lines will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court."  There is no discernible liberty interest either way.  Feel free to vote yes, no, or abstain on the slightest whim.

So what's the tally?  Eleven propositions, six recommended NO votes, four recommended YES votes, and one DON'T CARE.  That's more YES votes than I am accustomed to.  Perhaps I'll have to give some of those more thought.  I recommend www.ballotpedia.org as a place to start your own research, if you are so inclined.

Why I Blog

An element of vanity,
A smattering of mirth,
A stab at sifting sanity,
An accident of birth.

Like a lemming I join
that theater of voice;
Just hoping to coin
a phrasing of choice.

Expressing the contemporary,
Uncovering the obscure;
For dialogue giving sanctuary,
Or just blithering in pure.

Such are the reasons I blog;
If it seem not enough,
To endure such a slog,
Please don't leave in a huff.

Don't follow the herd;
Perhaps you may parse
In the blogging of a nerd
Profundity strolling with farce.