“The individualist, on the contrary, would take the position that an act of injustice which injured one person must not be performed even though a thousand others, or any number of others, might benefit thereby. The individualist would point out that a society which believed in injuring even one person for the benefit of others would be a society of cannibals. Each individual’s rights are absolute.”—Robert Lefevre, This Bread Is Mine
As the California primaries are right around the corner (June 5th), I wanted to create this simple guide for friends and family to refer to. As a Ron Paul supporter, I registered Republican, and accordingly, this is my list of ballot preferences and my reasonings thereof.
PRESIDENT Ron Paul
The singular champion of liberty, he is the only man who stands for peace, small government, civil liberties, and fiscal responsibility. No one else deserves the nomination but Ron Paul.
COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE
This is based on the least amount of research, as the Republican Central Committee has the least amount of impact on the state of things: Jon Aiken
Richard “Dick” Palmer
Scott “Scotty” Peotter
I’m currently torn between two options: Rick Williams
While he is another champion of liberty, and would support Ron Paul in his policies, I am a bit wary of his stance on immigration. I believe we should allow immigrants to freely enter this country, rather than put hoops on the entire process. I believe an Ellis Island approach to immigration is far healthier than sending illegal immigrants back at this point, especially considering that millions of these people are filing federal taxes through I-TIN. Plus, their support of the local economy also leads to sales tax accumulation, so it’s just a weak argument to say that they don’t pay taxes.
I align with nearly all of her views on the issues. We only differ on abortion: I believe that life begins at conception, and so it must be defended at all costs. However, it should be up to the states to decide the punishment, as Ron Paul has often mentioned. Gail believes that abortions should be restricted to the first term, something I appreciate, but I don’t necessarily agree with. However, given that Roe v. Wade currently stands, there isn’t much we can do about abortion, so restricting it is a far more viable option at this point.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, 48TH DISTRICT Dana Rohrbacher
Having written to him several times about my stance on issues, he has supported them and shown me a commitment to a smaller government, lower taxes and more civil liberties. While he has a ways to go to be a true champion of liberty, he is the best option at this point.
STATE SENATOR Mimi Walters
While I appreciate certain views that Steve Young shares (apprenticeship as an alternative to college), his pro-state increased spending is the last thing we need. Mimi Walters would not be my first choice, but these are the only two candidates on the ballot.
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, 74TH DISTRICT Allan Mansoor
While there isn’t much truly remarkable about Allan Mansoor’s platform, his commitment to keeping taxes low lends my vote over to him. Bob Rush is another candidate who has some great views on civil liberties and education, but a pro-state approach is the worst way to go about it. And as far as Leslie Daigle is concerned, the fact that Charles Munger, Jr. PAC spent nearly half a million dollars on her behalf is enough to keep my vote away from her.
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, OFFICE NO. 1 Eugene Jizhak
While this was the toughest office I had to research, what brought me to my conclusion were two things, the first being that Eugene Jizhak believes courts should treat citizens with more respect than they currently do. I agree wholeheartedly as government institutions have a tendency to treat you as criminals or time-wasters. Secondly, Deborah Chung has received contributions from firefighters and police, and has mentioned that the toughest problem facing her today is pension reform. It may be a jump, but I don’t think it’s wise to have someone like that in office. Contrarily, Eugene Jizhak hasn’t received any contributions to date, which means he doesn’t owe his allegiance to anyone.
PROP 28: LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS’ TERMS IN OFFICE NO
This is a rather sneaky proposition. It says it “limits” the terms of legislators, but it actually increases it. Currently, Assemblymen can serve a total of 6 years, and State Senators can serve a total of 8 years. Combined, this adds up to 14 years in office. This proposition, however, changes it so that a legislator can serve up to 12 years in the Assembly, the State Senate, or a combination of both. This actually increases the time a politician can serve in a single position, which means that lobbyists control them that much longer. This isn’t something I intend to support.
PROP 29: TAX ON CIGARETTES FOR CANCER RESEARCH NO
I don’t care for increased taxation on anything, so whether or not the money ends up in cancer research (debatable), I will be voting against it.
MEASURE A: COUNTY OF ORANGE, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR YES
This is to vote on whether the office will be filled by appointment or election. I’m not a fan of direct democracy, so I vote for appointment.
MEASURE B: COUNTY OF ORANGE, MANDATORY MINIMUM PENSION SELECTION ABSTAIN
While I’m inclined to lean towards voting ‘yes’ on this measure, it’s a mess either way. Currently, the system allows for two pension options: 2.7% at age 55 and 1.62% at age 65. A ‘yes’ on this measure would force everyone to enroll in the 1.62% at 65, which is a good thing because it would begin to address the $3.5 million in unfunded pensions in the county. However, the option to opt out of pensions (which currently exists) is taken away, and that may create more problems. Until real reform can be made without taking away the choice of opting out, I intend to abstain from this measure.
For a handy PDF copy of these recommendations, click HERE
“So many vows they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Obey your father. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. But what if your father despises the king? What if the king massacres the innocent? It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or another.”—Jaime Lannister, A Game of Thrones
“Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform.”—Henry David Thoreau, On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience
“But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? – in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.”—Henry David Thoreau, On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience
“And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel. Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba. His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice.
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, ‘Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.’ But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Samuel prayed to the Lord. The Lord said to Samuel, ‘Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.’
So Samuel spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked of him a king. He said, ‘This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.’
Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, ‘No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.’ Now after Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the Lord’s hearing. The Lord said to Samuel, ‘Listen to their voice and appoint them a king.’ So Samuel said to the men of Israel, ‘Go every man to his city.’”—1 Samuel 8, New American Standard Bible
“When my sense of self depends on what others say of me, anger is a quite natural reaction to a critical word. And when my sense of self depends on what I can acquire, greed flares up when my desires are frustrated. Thus greed and anger are the brother and sister of a false self fabricated by the social compulsions of an unredeemed world.”—Henri Nouwen, The Way of the Heart: The Spirituality of the Desert Fathers and Mothers