Second Thoughts on CA Prop 19 (2010)

Up until yesterday or the day before that I was an ardent supporter of the ballot initiative to legalize weed in CA. The first mark I made on my ballot was to tick a yes on Prop 19. But I might ask for a new ballot soon. There are a few reasons Prop 19 might not be better, and might even be worse, than the laws as they presently are.

First things first, Prop 19 can make it harder for medical marijuana users to get all the weed they need. It sets a limit of one ounce per person, and makes no exception for medical marijuana users, who would need more. And though it allows up to 25 sq. ft. of cultivation space for personal use, it also allows local governments to tax and restrict (or flat-out ban) it. This could be the end of marijuana collectives in some areas. Since 19 does not exempt medical marijuana from being taxed, weed might get too expensive for some medical marijuana users to afford, and since the limitation on cultivation space might forbid users from growing enough for themselves, some (or many) medical marijuana users would simply not have access to weed - despite the nominal "legalization" of it.

Though weed may be legal, the symptoms of prohibition may remain. If the taxes are high enough, and the restrictions draconian enough, there may still be a black market in weed. Earlier I was hoping that weed legalization could make it possible for us to get old-school weed - weed that isn't potent as fuck. Hopefully the one ounce per person limit and the 25 sq. ft. limit won't make it impossible to get it; but these resitrictions along with the restrictions of local governments may likely allow the high-potency strains that originated in prohibition to remain the dominant products in the market.

Of course, what's keeping me from getting a new ballot right now is that I haven't yet decided whether the nominal legality ofweed woud be better than weed being unavailable to some medical marijuana patients. I guess it comes down to how many people would be getting thrown in jail for weed use or possession now than after 19 passes. And I don't have any numbers on that.

Anyone who does have numbers on that is more than welcome to share them with me.

Thank You Tim Profitt

It is behavior like yours that gives the government "reasonable cause" to detain anyone with a copy of the Constitution in their pocket. You really help advance freedom. Dumbass.

I'm going to go to a student-run political debate tonight and if the Democrat doesn't drop your name at least once I'm going to be impressed.

Ever read ALL of the 1st Amendment? It says "the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble". Jeez, now I want to stomp somebody. See what violence does to people? Don't look at me, look at what your douchebaggery will do to your cause. You apparently haven't yet learned what BLOWBACK is. Well now you're gonna find out.

Genocide

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic attempt to wipe out a particular human population or demographic. The deliberateness of the crime is essential to it being classified as genocide. Wanton killing, even if accompanied by racism, should not be considered genocide unless it is carried out with the express intent to wipe out the entire target group. And the systematic subjugation of an entire nation resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths should not be considered genocide either, unless that subjugation is accompanied by the express intent to exterminate the people of that nation.

I'm writing this because someone I love just facebook "liked" the mis-named International Initiative to Prosecute US Genocide in Iraq. I've known for a couple years that the U.S. military and contractors have done things that result in quite a few deaths - not just of people killed in the crossfire, but of people whose standard of living plummeted after crucial services suddenly evaporated. But though lots of civilians died, and though their deaths can probably be called deliberate (if you know that the death results from your action and you perform the action, the death is caused deliberately), I wouldn't call this genocide against the Iraqis. It was not accompanied by the intent to wipe out every single Iraqi.

Of course, The International Initiative to Prosecute US Genocide in Iraq is not trying to convince us that the U.S. actually intends to wipe out every single Iraqi. The wiping out that the writers of this initiative are decrying is the destruction of Iraq as a nation state.

The crime of genocide is the intended destruction, in whole or substantial part, of an enumerated group as such. Iraq has been intentionally destroyed as a state and nation.

Over one million dead, a fifth of the population exiled, and millions more injured, alongside total infrastructural collapse and an unprecedented promotion of corruption, sectarianism and death squads, constitutes destruction substantial enough to negate the possibility of Iraq functioning as a viable entity. This is and heralds genocide.

Yes, social structures were destroyed in the war and this destruction resulted in numerous deaths. But the unviability of the nation state is not the same as a deliberate attempt to wipe out all members of a targeted group.

I'm being vain, of course, because the term "genocide" is totally useless as far as human rights is concerned. It's as irrelevant as the broader umbrella term "hate crime". Whether the victims were targetted for being members of a particular group is irrelevant - what matters is that their rights were trampled. Killing 6 million Jews with the intent to wipe out all of European Jewry isn't any worse than killing 6 million persons of diverse racial backgrounds without the intent to wipe out any race.

That said, I do think the word genocide shouldn't be used by people who oppose the war in Iraq. Either it makes us peace-niks look like we're dishonest and manipulative about our words, or it makes us look like we don't know what we're talking about. The initiative would sound just as urgent if it were called "The International Initiative to Prosecute US War Crimes in Iraq".

A Few Quick Words on Voting

I've read enough anti-voting comments from libertarian anarchists. I'll try to explain my pov very quickly:

I don't in any way give consent to the existence and abuses of a monopolistic government by sending a government office two pieces of paper with tick marks on them. And the governing "authorities" don't base their treatment of me on whether or not I voted, or whether or not I even consent to their authority. They're not going to go - "Oh, you declined to turn in your ballot last November? Well excuse me, here's the full amount of your fine back."

Voting might be an act of violence, but if you vote "correctly" it's analagous to an act of defensive violence.

The vast majority of anti-voting comments - probably 99% of the ones I've seen - are specifically about voting for candidates. These people speak as if they never before in their life seen or heard of a ballot measure. They seem completely oblivious to the fact that you can help prevent the passage of a bad law by voting against it. And they seem equally oblivious to the voters' ability to enact a law that is less evil than the ones that are in place. When CA Prop 19 fails by a handful of votes, all you libertarian anarchists in my homestate will sit there wondering if weed could have been legalized by you spending a couple minutes ticking "Yes" and dropping that ballot in a box.

Voting can be a fun and creative way to protest the ridiculousness (yes that's a word) of representative democracy. Ever tried writing in "Nobody" for President? Or have you ever considered writing in your own name? (Voting is self-government, right?)

The unspoken truth is that you don't have to vote for anybody when you vote. The ballots I mail in usually have very few candidates marked. Yes, I am afraid of voting in somebody who'll exercise power unjustly. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't turn in a ballot.

In short, I don't think voting is unprincipled, or a waste of time. It can actually be amuzing.

An Unsolicited Plug for Jacob Spinney

Jacob Spinney is a magician who makes videos on youtube about libertarianism and animal rights. He's an anarcho-capitalist, a bit of an animal rights activist, a vegetarian (though not a vegan...yet), and almost as "pro-life" as me. He might be called a "right-wing" anarchist, because he opposes most abortion and because he calls himself a capitalist; though like every good market anarchist he opposes IP - he even opposes contractual copyright, which is further left than where I stand. I'd say he fits into that very tight niche of pro-life animal rights market anarchist, which as far as I know includes 2 people - him and me. Indulge yourself at his blog.

They Murdered Che

I hate to sound as if I'm actually standing up for a commonly known murderer, especially one as brazen and psychotic as Che Guevara. But the latest article by anti-Che-cult activist Humberto Fontova compels me to open my mouth.

I could care less that this article uses more than a few recycled lines from a few of his previous articles written for this time of year. That doesn't aggravate me one bit. What really gets me is Fontova's last line in his latest article, referring to Che's execution without trial: "Justice has never been better served."

It is hardly within the spirit of "limited government" to defend summary executions. The whole point of procedural rights and duties is that to protect the innocent from wrongful punishment, you have to give the benefit of the doubt even to the most obviously guilty. "Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."

By calling the murder of Che Guevara "just", Fontova poses himself as a defender of the very abuses that Che Guevara is apparently guilty of. This is reminding me of the War [of] Terror.

Fontova's jabbing rhetoric seems to be the delight of anti-commies, and his articles are unsurprisingly posted on both conservative and libertarian websites. If Fontova's latest article were posted on LRC, as are a few of his other October articles, I as an LRC reader would be embarassed. It would go beyond the typical coziness with deer hunters and caveman diet enthusiasts and enter the realm of neoconservative apologetics.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Note: All my talk about presuming the innocence of the accused should not be construed as referencing grounds for a just execution. I think it's pretty obvious that the only way to ensure against unjust execution is to not have executions. I also personally believe that deadly force is only legitimate against people who are in the act of or just about to commit lethal force, and for that reason I believe that putting confined criminals to death is illegitimate.

A Conversation on the Burqa Ban

Below is most of a comments conversation that some acquaintances and I had on Facebook. I removed posts that I consider irrelevant to the discussion. I might post them if a reader begs me to. Nothing that I posted here is “improved” in any way, so all the spelling errors are sic.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

My brother: Any thoughts on France's burqa ban? I've generally felt that bans on this kind of thing are a bit totalitarian, but a friend of mine recently likened the burqa to "modern-day slavery." What are your thoughts? Should women be punished for wearing their religious clothing, as they would be under the new French law?

T: The burqa is a symbol of chauvanistic slavery. It's sad that the women who wear it tolerate it. France is simply saying they won't tolerate it. Which is good.(It won't last long.) Besides, it's a safety issue because of the face being entir...ely covered. It has nothing to do with religion. The mall I used to work security at had a zero tolerance policy for people walking through with a mask on- even on Halloween. Not only is it unsafe, but it also makes it easier to commit a crime without being recognizable. One guy even walked through with an all out Darth Vader mask. Did you see the story of the lady who wanted her driver's license picture with the burqa on? Holy cow.

My brother: I did hear about that story--what a mess that would have been for identification purposes. The burqa ban is interesting--it passed by an absolute landslide, and the 100 or so abstains were almost all leftists who didn't want to get caught up in the mess of it.

A: I don't agree with the ban, but I do agree that it is a symbol of a chauvinistic society/belief system. I actually get angry when I see women who wear it. It's like they are going along with the sadistic and profoundly unfair system of laws that keep women down in those parts of the world. The feminist in me screams and yells, kicking even. But I still don't think you can tell people what to wear on their heads.

My brother: A, I think yours is a perfectly sound viewpoint. I think it's possible to disagree with something without call...ing for an outright ban on it. I wonder if there's a more organic way to promote women's rights than bans like this.

Me: I'd say that a burqa can constitute a mask, and so any private agency has the right to exclude people who wear it, and any government agency that has a legitimate interest in seeing people's faces (ie a jail that needs to take a mug shot) has the right to make someone take it off. I also understand that people can read it as a symbol of chauvenistic slavery. However, the idea that it's a symbol of an unseemly thing is a social attitude that should be left up to individuals to embrace or refrain from embracing, and should not be enforced by a government as policy. Remember - lots of people think long full skirts are also symbols of chauvenistic slavery, and it would be a real shame for a government to prohibit women from adhering to their personal sense of modesty.

I don't consider the mere wearing of a garment to be necessarily coerced - even if the garment hides most of the wearer's body. It is conceivable that most women who do wear the burqa do so out of steep social pressure, or out of all-out coercion. But it is also conceivable that a woman can do it voluntarily, and if it's possible for a woman to wear it voluntarily - which quite a few do - then it should not be treated as slavery as far as government policy is concerned.

Like a few other government actions, this ban is an encroachment on the rights of private property owners, in that owners of private semi-public places like cafes, restaurants, and malls cannot tolerate women who wear burqas on their property - the women can still be fined, even if the owner of the property consents to the woman dressing that way on his property.

Me: And another thing: a national regualtion on what a woman may and may not wear runs completely against any supposed goal of liberating women.

Post-Bush Neocon’s Mom: So what do you think about a Government who requires a woman to wear a Burqa, Isaiah?

Me: Probably a slightly more pronounced version of what I think of a government that requires women to wear any clothes at all.

Post-Bush Neocon’s Mom: Isaiah, sorry but I don't get your response. :-/

My brother: It's interesting that you bring up governments requiring women to wear a burqa, Nancy--because Isaiah seems to be really honing in on that key word: require. Personally, I'm adamantly opposed to any government requiring a woman to wear a burqa; then in France the government is requiring women to NOT wear them. Amid all this requiring I wonder whether governments should be making any requirement about that at all.

Post-Bush Neocon’s Mom: What reasons are there to require women to not wear a burqa? Is it for national security?

My brother: When the French government first made the recommendation, it said "to ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes." Other reasons given include public safety. I don't see national security as a reason; this follows a 2004 law disallowing children from wearing any overt religious symbolism whatsoever in French schools (that includes religious head-scarves and cross-shaped necklaces).

Me: Sorry, I was being facetious. I believe that a national government should have a very minimal role in dictating what people wear. It does have an understandable and excusable reason to require people to dress fully and formally for an appearance in federal court, or for a visit to any other meeting of the national government. I do not believe that should include a requirement to wear a face covering. A national government has an understandable and excusable reason to require minimal dress standards for certain public places like public parks and beaches, though it has just as understandable and excusable reasons to designate certain parks and beaches as clothing optional. It's also understandable and excusable for a government to require people to show their faces in their drivers' license photos (though of course I oppose government mandating any kind of licensing, including drivers' licenses). All of these considerations above are very time- and place-specific.

Some national laws dictating what one may or may not wear would be understandable and excusable regardless of place and time - for instance a ban on wearing a live bomb vest. But a national law regarding what people wear in their personal and day-to-day lives, without being necessary to address a public safety need, is an unjustified intrusion into the individual's personal sphere.

Rules about what one may and may not wear on the sidewalk or a city bus are more understandably the role of local governments; though here too I think it is more justifiable to err on the side of liberality than on the side of astringence (and some cities are just too big for me to call "local"). And I would be reluctant to step foot in a city that required its women to wear burqas in public - if that's what you're asking about.

E: Aww, shucks, Nate considers me a friend. ~;)

I think if we don’t look at this as telling people what to and what not to wear but, rather, look at it as a matter of human rights one might think differently.

Obviously, in our society, more legislation is almost always viewed as a bad thing - Don’t tell me what I can and cannot do! We view it as protecting our liberties to do whatever the hell we want (within reason, of course), even screaming at the top of our lungs against our government.

But there are many times in history where legislating human rights was, indeed, the only way to foster equality. Take desegregation for example. Or women’s suffrage. Or the current issue of gay marriage. Sometimes legislation is the only way to FORCE people treat everyone equally. It may not be pretty but if people aren’t going to stand up for others on their own, and the group does not have or does not think it has the power to stand up for themselves, then what possible other course of action do you take, other than to be content with the status quo?

I don’t want governments to legislate away our rights and freedoms. But I want everyone treated equally, whether bigots, misogynists and homophobes agree or not, and I support any legislation that forces them to do so.

You can show me a plethora of women saying that they are wearing the burqa by choice, but I will never believe that is a choice that comes from free will. Too often women in Muslim societies are oppressed and they don’t feel they have other options. They have been raised to believe they are less than their male counterparts and all of the aspects of their lives (food, education, choice) have reinforced that belief.

I am not saying that all Muslim culture is misogynist. Indeed, there are many Muslim communities that choose to treat women as equals and believe in a different interpretation of the Koran. But having traveled through Muslim countries as a woman, I most certainly felt oppressed and unable to express myself. And I didn’t even live there.

So…that’s my .02 since I apparently started this interesting discussion! Thanks, [my brother], for continuing it! ~:)

Me: I agree that legislation to end government discrimination is appropriate. About legislation that forces private groups and individuals to integrate, I offer the perspective of this article. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010.../0526/Rand-Paul-and-the-Civil-Rights-Act-Was-he-right "Starting in Greensboro, North Carolina, in 1960, lunch counters throughout the South began to be desegregated through direct but peaceful confrontation – sit-ins – staged by courageous students and others who refused to accept humiliating second-class citizenship. Four years before the Civil Rights Act passed, lunch counters in downtown Nashville were integrated within four months of the launch of the Nashville Student Movement’s sit-in campaign."

About gay marriage, I offer the perspective of this article. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-02-faith-edit_x.htm The solution called for here is not forced integration.

I would not believe for one milisecond the idea that *NOT A SINGLE* woman who wears a burqa does so freely. That's just such a broad statement it looks wrong on its face. Of course the ideas people are raised with are going to have an effect on the choices they make - that doesn't mean that the clothes they decide to wear are necessarily going to be clothes they were forced to wear. And besides ideas that people are raised with, what about ideas that people adopt? What about the white English or American women who convert to Islam and start wearing burqas on their own? I don't see any firm ground to assume that they too were somehow coerced into donning the burqa by some radically constricted gender role that they inherited.

Where I'm Liberal

The other day my brother and I were talking on the phone, and I started talking about how uncomfortable I am even identifying with the not-so-grand not-so-old party. To illustrate, I tried to list those issues where I’m liberal. I mentioned my stances on war, gay rights, and drug rights, then my mind went blank. It was a little awkward, considering that I had just said that I am only conservative on 2 or 3 issues and that I’m radically liberal on everything else. So when I got back to my room I started writing up this list of issues where I’m liberal, and where I’m uber liberal. At the bottom of this list I give 3 positions that mark me as very conservative. This isn’t all of it, and these aren’t the defining principles of what I believe politically. But I just wanted to give a sketch of how many arms and legs I would need for the Twister game of Politics.

1. I oppose pretty much all wars.
2. The death penalty should be immediately, completely, and permanently abolished.
3. Abolish the draft. All of it.
4. People who grew up here shouldn’t be deported to a strange country.
5. Increase the number of workers visas to meet the demand. Don’t make them wait in line so long or pay such high fees that they would rather hire a coyote to sneak them across the desert to get in.
6. I’m very careful about where my chocolate comes from. I rarely buy any. Ever heard of chocolate slavery? It’s real.
7. The sovereign debt of 3rd world nations should be forgiven.
8. Factory farms should not be eligible for federal or state subsidies. In fact, not one bit of Big Ag should get subsidies (which means there shouldn’t be agricultural subsidies, since Big [fill in the blank] is what happens when you start subsidizing [fill in the blank]).
9. Animal welfare regulations are small steps forward.
10. I strive to abstain from consuming animal products. No sentient being exists for another’s pleasure.
11. Same-sex couples have just as much a right to marry as do opposite-sex couples.
12. Islam is just another theistic religion, and should be treated as such.
13. Students at public schools have the right to pray and conduct religious activities during lunch and before or after school. Not during class.
14. Reparations are due to the victims of the Rodney King riots, the victims of U.S. concentration camps, and American Indians.
15. Patent amounts to Peter getting forced to pay Paul for permission to use things that Peter invented himself.
16. “Neighborhood improvement” projects that involve eminent domain hurt the poor the most. It’s usually the dirt poor areas that get condemned, meaning that loads of renters for whom “just compensation” doesn’t mean much get thrown onto the street and have to find some other crowded neighborhood to squeeze in to.
17. The drinking age should be reduced to 18, probably lower.
18. I want all drugs legalized. Or at least legalize weed, acid, and coke.
19. I want prostitution legalized. Women shouldn’t be thrown in jail for trying to get by in a way that violates no one’s rights.
20. Pornographic material should be legal, and stay legal (except for crush, snuff, and film recordings of actual rapes, of which regulation or prohibition is understandable and excusable).
21. Bring back the topless coffee drive-thrus.
22. Only violent crimes should be punished with prison time.
23. I believe not just in a right to die, but also in a right to suicide. All of this is depends, of course, on whether the person consents to it.

The liberal stances I have which the “progressives” are often too wimpy to talk about:

24. There should be no licensing laws for beauticians.
25. I want moonshine whisky legalized.
26. I think children who are old enough to talk politics are old enough to vote.
27. Children who are old enough to sell cookies or clean up a senior citizen’s yard are old enough to get paid for their work.
28. Children have a right to free time safe from the encroachment of homework and chores.
29. The mutilation of the infant male’s genitals (aka “circumcision”), whether performed for mystical superstitious reasons or for vain aesthetic reasons, is a violent invasion of the child’s physical integrity, and should be abolished in all 50 states of the Union.
30. Children have a fundamental human right to unilaterally divorce their parents for any reason they fancy.
31. Screw marriage equality. Give us marriage freedom. Let’s recognize the legitimacy of poly-amorous unions. Better yet, get government completely out of the business of defining what a marriage is and what it’s not.
32. If a restaurant owner wants to allow people to smoke in his restaurant, people should be allowed to smoke in his restaurant.
33. The U.S. should get out of the UN, for the UN’s sake.
34. “Defense” spending should be cut by at least 80%.
35. Government subsidies for transportation contribute to environmentally- and economically- unsustainable development. Our governments should just stop repairing the roads and highways and then see what happens. (Maybe they already started that.)
36. Water should be sold at a graduated price that allows the “little guys” access to it, encourages conservation (and even savings), and takes into account how much water is being lost on the way to the tap. People in So-Cal should pay more than double the price that people close to the water sources in Nor-Cal pay.
37. African Americans probably deserve reparations too.
38. Urban tenants should probably be granted title to their flats.
39. People should be free to make residence in any house that has been unoccupied for a long time, and to plant or build on any lot that has been empty for a long time.
40. Everyone’s debt should probably be forgiven. Start over with an almost clean slate. If you’re a lender, sucks for you. At least you won’t owe any debts either.
41. Sick and tired of all the stupid Mexicans around you? Ever wonder whether they might learn better in their own language?
42. Stop putting poison in our water.
43. Young people should not be required by law to perform community service. Last I checked, involuntary servitude is still slavery.

Where I’m not liberal very much:

44. About 98% of abortions are murder.
45. Taxation is theft.
46. The disparity of power between an overbearing and intrusive government and its hapless subjects may be reduced with the widespread individual ownership of, open possession of, and familiarity with semi-automatic firearms; and restrictions on private ownership of lethal weapons only exacerbates that power disparity between institutions of violence and the individual.