Proposition 2: Public Education Facilities Bond Measure

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: The Libertarian Party opposes using taxpayer dollars to fund large-scale government projects like school construction. There are concerns that the state may misallocate funds, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of accountability.

Proposition 3: Fundamental Right to Marry

LPCA Endorsed Position : YES

Reason: Individuals should have the freedom to marry any consenting adult, regardless of gender. It is not the state’s role to dictate the terms of marriage.

Proposition 4: Climate Bond Measure

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: The Libertarian Party believes that the state should not be entrusted with more taxpayer funds, as it often mismanages resources and fails to deliver effective solutions.

Proposition 5: Housing and Public Infrastructure Bond Measure

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: This measure is intrusive and undermines the real estate industry by placing additional burdens on taxpayers. Local governments should not have easier access to borrowing at the expense of fiscal responsibility.

Proposition 6: Ban Involuntary Prison Servitude

LPCA Endorsed Position : Pending Deliberation

Reason: Pending Deliberation

Proposition 32: $18 Minimum Wage Increase

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: The Libertarian Party believes that the government should not interfere in the employer-employee relationship by mandating wages. Such regulations can lead to higher prices for consumers, force businesses to close, & harm the economy by reducing job availability.

Proposition 33: Rent Control Expansion 

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: The Libertarian Party maintains that the government should not regulate rental prices. Imposing rent controls can create economic strain on landlords and disrupt the housing market, ultimately harming both property owners and tenants by reducing available housing options.

Proposition 34: Effort to Require Healthcare Group Patient Spending

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO OPINION

Reason: A YES vote will show opposition to use of taxpayer funds from MediCal to use for 3rd party real estate projects A NO vote allows no change in this allowed profit use. It appears that this prop as written will most likely be overturned in court

Proposition 35: Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: The Libertarian Party argues that the government should not dictate how tax revenue is allocated. Governor Newsom’s assurances do not address the broader economic implications for all Californians and may lead to inefficiencies in resource distribution.

Proposition 36: Penalty Increase for Theft and Drug Trafficking

LPCA Endorsed Position: Pending Deliberation

Source: https://ca.lp.org/voter-guide-2/

December 7, 1941, is etched into history as the day when the serenity of Pearl Harbor was shattered by an act of aggression, propelling the United States into World War II. This tragic event serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences that come when nations choose the path of aggression. This lesson resonates throughout history and reverberates in current global affairs.

The surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor was the impetus for the United States to get involved in World War II. Japan’s aggression transformed a regional conflict into a global battle and paved the way for unprecedented devastation, culminating in the use of nuclear weapons on the Japanese mainland. More than 400,000 Americans would die in the war and roughly 55 million total around the world. More than 38 million of those deaths were civilians.

Fast forward to the present day and the world is witnessing acts of aggression escalate nations into war yet again.

Russia’s 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine have killed thousands of innocent people and pushed the international community to the brink of another global conflict. Russia has kidnapped Ukrainian children and relocated them into Russia. Russia has deliberately targeted civilian buildings with no military value, and destroyed power plants before winter to freeze Ukrainians. With tensions escalating and the specter of World War III looming, many countries are already involved in a proxy-war. Russia’s continuing aggression threatens to plunge nations into the abyss of warfare, endangering countless lives and destabilizing the delicate balance of global peace.

In the Middle East, the aggression of Hamas against Israel underscores a tragic pattern of escalation. In Early October acts of invasion, kidnapping and rape by Hamas haveled to measures by Israel to nullify the offensive capacity of Hamas. Because Hamas is using civilians as human shields, some of Israel’s attacks against Hamas are hitting ciivilian shields, resulting in the loss of innocent lives which Hamas will use to justify  a perpetual cycle of hostility. As the world watches, the region becomes a crucible of suffering, with no clear resolution in sight.

In each of these conflicts the initial act of aggression prompted a vigorous defense and led to escalating warfare between the parties. And in each scenario, many innocent men, women, and children lives have been loss.

In the face of these conflicts – and many others throughout history where the same pattern was witnessed – it becomes imperative to advocate for an alternative approach: the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Living by the NAP means recognizing the futility of aggression as a tool of diplomacy and choosing peaceful means to resolve disputes. It is a call for individuals to embrace dialogue, cooperation, and respect for sovereignty rather than resorting to force.

Full Post by Mike Hudson @ The Libertarian Party https://www.lp.org/from-pearl-harbor-to-present-the-perils-of-aggression/

In 1982 the Libertarian National Convention added a plank on Women’s Rights to the Permanent Platform of The Libertarian Party. This plank was kept in the platform without change until the Libertarian National Convention of 1994.

19. WOMEN’S RIGHTS

“We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women. We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.”

“Recognizing that each person must be the sole and absolute owner of his or her own body, we support the right of women to make a personal choice regarding the termination of pregnancy. We oppose the undermining of the right via laws requiring consent of the pregnant woman’s parents, consent of the prospective father, waiting periods, or compulsory provision of indoctrination on medical risks or fetal development. However, we also oppose all tax funding for abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. We also condemn state-mandated abortions.”

The plank on Women’s Rights was in the Libertarian Platform in 1988 when Ron Paul accepted the nomination for President of The Libertarin Party.

Added Paragraph in 1994

In 1994 the heading of the Plank was changed to 19. Women’s Rights and Abortion The plank was expanded by adding one additional paragraph:

“We oppose the fetal protection doctrine under which the state could require prenatal testing, require Caesarian births, require fetal surgery, require force feeding of the mother, jail pregnant substance abusers, bar home births, and bar pregnant women from working in unhealthy places and which would hold a woman legally liable — because of her diet or personal behavior — for having a damaged or deformed child. Under this doctrine, women could also be held liable for not aborting a damaged or deformed fetus.”

The Libertarian Party Plank on Women’s Rights and Abortion, as adopted in 1982 and expanded in 1994 provide’s a clear statement of the Libertarian Position on a Woman’s right to control her own body and her own life. In 1996 and subsequent conventions, the plank was modified. It provided less clarity, but The Libertarian Party remained on record in support of Freedom of Choice for Women until the Libertarian National Convention in 2022.

At the 2022 National Convention, the organized forces of the “Mises” Caucus voted to eliminate the plank altogether. A future convention will have the power to adopt a plank on the issue of Women’s Rights and Abortion.

Restore the 1994 Plank on Women’s Rights and Abortion

The 1994 Plank is a clear statement that mainstream Libertarians can united behind. It is one of the few planks in The Libertarian Platform that is in agreement with a majority of American voters. Libertarians should work to restore the 1994 Plank on Women’s Rights and Abortion.

Source for Plank: 1986 Platform (clearest print of 1982 plank) https://lpedia.org/wiki/Document:National_Platform_1986#20._WOMEN.27S_RIGHTS

1994 Plank: https://lpedia.org/wiki/Document:National_Platform_1994#19._Women.27s_Rights_and_Abortion

The full text of the Permanent Platform of The Libertarian Party, as modified every two years can be found @ https://lpedia.org/wiki/National_Platform

(by Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

In the period after the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, a young Murray Rothbard became involved in the Ayn Rand circle in New York. Rothbard brought several other young libertarians from his Circle Bastiat into the group.

Rothbard had been invited into the circle by Nathanial Branden after he wrote to Rand about how great her accomplishment was in writing Atlas Shrugged. Branden writes in Judgment Day:”The letter was movingly and beautifully written, profoundly insightful concerning what Ayn had accomplished in Atlas and full of what seemed like the most genuine appreciation and admiration. It was almost the model of an ideal fan letter, at the highest intellectual level.” (page 259).

It didn’t last. Rothbard came to see in the Ayn Rand circle what others came to see – acolytes looking up to a guru. After several months in the Ayn Rand circle, in a letter to Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard wrote that “the fanaticism with which they worship Rand and Branden has to be seen to be believed, the whole atmosphere being a kind of combination of a religious cult and a Trotskyite cell.” (quoted in Mises: the Last Night of Liberalism by Guido Huelsmann)

Nathanial Branden had his own reaction to Murray Rothbard:”Murray lived in New York and Ayn invited him to a meeting. While he clearly had striking intellectual gifts, I felt a stab of disappointment almost the first moment. fear and malice seemed to leap from his face.”

Soon Rothbard’s anarchism became an issue. Branden writes in Judgment Day (page 260): “We had a few debates with Murray about government and its necessity, which were initially calm and good natured. One evening he brought with him his own circle of friends —young students of economics, history and the like —all of whom were anarchists and all of whom, at least to my perception, had something of Murray’s manner about them, something fearful and given to sarcasm and hints of unidentified superiority. In appearance and style they were indistinguishible from any of the young socialists I had ever encountered.”

Objectivism and Libertarianism are both philosophies focused on individualism, and respect for individuality. Even such philosophies can lead to cult-like behavior. Murray Rothbard and Nathanial Branden have each warned us about cult behavior. It is up to us to protect our individuality and up to us to respect the individuality of others.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

In the June 1971 issue of The Libertarian Forum, Murray Rothbard published a front page essay on libertarian strategy, titled How to Destatize. In this essay he looks at what libertarian activists were doing, and what libertarian activists were saying had to be done to bring about a free society.

After critiquing the “education” approach of right-wing libertarians, and the left-wing actions on May Day in 1971, Dr Rothbard looks at two victories for liberty in New York state – the end of rent control, and the legalization of abortion. New York state legalized abortion in 1970, three years after Gov. Ronald Reagan had signed a law to protect abortion rights in California in 1967. Rothbard credits the focus of the women’s movement on principle, and their willingness to act in support of principle, for pushing New York state to legalize abortion. Here is what he wrote in 1971:

“Abortion reform also had the ingredients of sound libertarian theory at work plus a crisis situation. The theory had been propounded for years by pro-abortion groups, but was accelerated recently by the fact that the Women’s Lib groups, in their raucous and annoying manner, had stumbled across a purely libertarian theory which they propounded with force and effect: that every woman has the absolute right to own and control her own body. The attention devoted to Women’s Lib by the media assured that the politicians finally were able to hear, not a wishywashy liberal plea for moderate abortion reform, but the “extreme” – and consistent – view that the State had no right to pass any abortion restrictions whatever.”

“While libertarian theory had been firmed up and spread more aggressively, a crisis situation was becoming ever more blatant: and this was the massive, non-violent civil disobedience of women and doctors who obtained their abortions illegally. And not only were increasing numbers of women and doctors willing to ignore the law; but others were increasingly willing to broaden the fuzzy zone that often exists between legality and illegality: for example, doctors willing to stretch the definition of “endangering the health of the mother”, which made abortion permissible. Furthermore, it was also becoming evident that, taking place as they did under conditions of illegality, the abortions were both unnecessarily expensive and unnecessarily dangerous. In the case of abortions, then, it was mass civil disobedience that brought about the crisis situation, while the spread of libertarian theory made the government more willing to turn· to the de-statizing solution, But not only theory: also the use of the theory to pressure the politicians, by petition, by noise, by threat of votes, etc.”

You can access The Libertarian Forum as PDF @ The Mises Instiute https://cdn.mises.org/Libertarian%20Forum_Volume_1.pdf (Scroll down to June 1971)

With the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade, and the actions of the “Mises” Caucus at the Recent Libertarian National Convention, it is necessary to reassert the libertarian commitment to personal rights, including the right to privacy and the right to self-ownership.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Several state supreme courts already have recognized the right to terminate a pregnancy. Will more states join the list?

JACOB SULLUM | 6.30.2022 6:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. But several state supreme courts have rejected abortion bans as inconsistent with state constitutional provisions, and current litigation over new restrictions seeks to enforce such precedents or create new ones.

Those lawsuits have met with some initial success in Michigan, where a judge ruled in May that the state constitution protects abortion rights, and Florida, where a judge said the same on Thursday. Some lawsuits do not claim constitutional protection for abortion rights but instead seek to delay implementation of “trigger” bans designed to take effect after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent that the Supreme Court repudiated in Dobbs. Here is a rundown of where things stand.

PRE-DOBBS DECISIONS

Alaska

In 1997, the Alaska Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state constitution “protects reproductive autonomy, including the right to abortion.” The court cited Article I, Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution, which was adopted in 1972 and says, “The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.”

The justices concluded that “a woman’s control of her body, and the choice whether or when to bear children, involves the kind of decision-making that is “necessary for…civilized life and ordered liberty.” They added that “our prior decisions support the further conclusion that the right to an abortion is the kind of fundamental right and privilege encompassed within the intention and spirit of Alaska’s constitutional language.”

California

In 1969, four years before Roe established a constitutional right to abortion, the California Supreme Court ruled that a state law allowing a woman to obtain an abortion only when it is “necessary to preserve her life” was so vague that it violated the right to due process. It said “a definition requiring certainty of death,” as urged by the government, “would work an invalid abridgment of the woman’s constitutional rights,” including “the woman’s rights to life and to choose whether to bear children.”

The justices reasoned that “the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children follows from the Supreme Court’s and this court’s repeated acknowledgment of a ‘right of privacy’ or ‘liberty’ in matters related to marriage, family, and sex.” They noted that “none of the parties who have filed briefs in this case have disputed the existence of this fundamental right.”

Complete Post by Jacob Sullum @ Reason https://reason.com/2022/06/30/without-roe-v-wade-litigants-look-to-state-constitutions-for-protection-of-abortion-rights/