Libertarians Assure Family Planning for Peace

By Douglas Arthur Tuma

By shrinking government, Libertarians can bring peace and end communist conflicts and fascist domination of family planning.

Having property is having decision­making authority over its use. How we agree upon who makes the decisions about the issues that affect us can be easily resolved if the ownership of the property involved is clear and secure. If not, then competing interests for decision­making authority are constrained to suffer what Garrett Hardin called "the tragedy of the commons." Special interests compete over the use of the commons of involuntary labor (slavery) that is mastered by the government/state monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within the boundaries of its sovereignty.

Special interests lobby congressmen to over-tax trade and over-regulate personal choices, tragically depleting the productivity of society in the same manner that competing herds of sheep over-graze a common field until it is barren. In the competition for the use of common "public" domain and government enforcement power, fraudulent arguments are desperately raised and defended to justify confiscation of private property and expansion of government command and control over individual choice. As government expands, people lose their freedom ­ rights, property, liberty ­ and they become slaves.

Libertarians have a consistent position of minimizing government interference in what Robert Nozick called "capitalist acts between consenting adults". This means we support no government interference with personal reproductive and spending choices, including the choice by some to not fund family planning. If family planning supporters would refrain from using government intrusion on our personal labor as they appeal for the exclusion of government from our private lives, I believe we will enjoy a more peaceful tolerance for diverse views.

Freedom from the tragedy of state communism and government fascism is the best gift we can give our children. We can be the best parents possible by planning for peace in our children's political future. That peace will be most assured when our elected representatives are Libertarians.

Fraudulent Federal Environmental Protection Hurts Humanity (continued from Position Paper 2)

True or false: message and spirit

The fraud I've seen is so extensive that a general overview would be as useless as a view of all the violence on earth seen from the moon. Neither fraud nor truth can be believed unless it is seen up close and the people who carry the message, true or false, lovingly embraced. That means we must reserve judgment on each alleged truth or deception long enough to understand the human spirit that feeds it.

Kesterson: San Luis Drain: land, water, salt, & life

Consider whether or not the name "National Wildlife Refuge" was deceptively applied to 5,900 acres of "grazing land" in the flood plain of the San Joaquin River purchased by the federal government in 1968 from various owners. Apparently, one of the previous owners had the name "Kesterson".

The Kesterson property is southeast of Highway 140, between Gustine and Merced, just a few hundred feet south of a place where one of Fremont's expeditions apparently crossed the river. My guess is that most river fords are picked where the land is highest and driest. In between floods from Sierra snow melt, which occur about one year in four and long after waterfowl migrate to northern breeding grounds, all of this part of the flood plain looks high and dry. The river and adjacent sloughs have cut their channels several feet into the flood plain, draining the land between so only drought tolerant vegetation can survive.

The abundance of salt tolerant vegetation indicates accumulation of salt in the soil profile. Ground water samples taken from preconstruction auger holes were found to range from one quarter to slightly more than the salinity of sea water. Soil samples from the auger holes were mostly clay. This is a place where surface runoff in recent geologic history has not been sufficient to carry either suspended clay particles or dissolved salts further downstream. In fact, this part of the San Joaquin River flood plain slopes from elevation 75 feet above sea level to 70 feet in six miles ­ pretty near level.

Kesterson is a desert salt sink ­ a place where salt naturally accumulates. It is a place where artesian ground water from underlying Sierran sands has leached salts from overlying coastal range clays and has precipitated those salts in the near-surface unsaturated soil. No wonder if infrequent ponding by surface flooding quickly becomes saline as it dissolves the accumulation of near-surface salt. This is possibly the least productive land in the whole Central Valley. No wonder it is one of the least populated areas in the valley.

A 1283 acre site was picked for construction of levees to impound up to four feet of water in a dozen compartments, forming a series of adjacent ponds, collectively named Kesterson Reservoir. The water would be taken from a concrete lined channel, named the San Luis Drain, which collected water from subsurface farm field drains 47 to 83 miles upstream. The concrete lining was placed with periodically spaced holes so it wouldn't float. That meant that ground water all along the channel could seep into it and flow down its length. Periodic check structures were placed to keep this flow under control. Much of the channel was full of ground water most of the time. Especially when adjacent hunting club land was flooded to attract ducks.

The San Luis Drain was designed to carry ground water, collected along its length and from under fields further up the valley. Not surface water. In order to get into the drain, water had to filter through at least a few feet of soil. Which meant it was a lot cleaner for human contact than municipal waste water treatment plant inflow and, in many cases, aeration lagoons and effluent. Cleaner than irrigation water. Cleaner than river and slough water. But salty. Not as salty as sea water. Only a quarter as much. Not too salty to support some wetland habitat.

Prior owners apparently flooded some portions of Kesterson with well wter during the waterfowl hunting season. Whether waterfowl are attracted by local well water or ground water collected below fields further up the valley shouldn't make much difference to them during the time they rest before the next shoot day.

A 1985 field check indicated three permanent residences within a mile and a half west of Kesterson. Immediately east of the site ­ on the opposite side of the San Luis Drain, which bordered the east side of Kesterson Reservoir ­ was an occupied ranch house. From appearances, it looked to me like its owners had been there for a long time, barely subsisting on their ranch income. Otherwise, hunting club cabins are the only structures seen for miles around. Property all around Kesterson has traditionally been grazed by cattle in the spring and flooded in the winter to attract ducks.

The property was bought by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) with funds authorized for construction of the San Luis Unit of the CVP. Those federal funds were in effect a loan to California chartered water districts which signed contracts with Reclamation to repay the cost of construction.

Dedication of purpose: water supply contracts: empty promises

EPPAs, many politicians, and some free market economists call Reclamation project water "subsidized", based on the much greater price city residents pay for each gallon of municipal water delivery than the price farmers pay for Reclamation water delivery. Such criticism fails to recognize the much greater expense for treating municipal water to safe drinking standards and the much greater construction and operation cost per unit flow for a pressurized municipal delivery system.

It also fails to recognize that the right to divert water is a capital cost incurred by virtue of application to state government for a diversion license before other applicants or purchase of diversion rights from prior applicants. This is as simple a concept as the value people place in holding a position in a queue ­ a line of civilized people, each waiting for the person in line ahead of them to take their entitlement before they take their own turn. The relative position in line determines relative value and can be traded as property among willing sellers and buyers.

Instead of standing in queues all day to defend our place in line, like former Soviet citizens waiting for food and wasting time that could have been used more productively, the early settlers of our country agreed to honor titles of property ownership to save our respective places in line for access to resources. Our society of property owners fought advocates of communism at almost every opportunity. But while our attention was diverted by distressing claims of environmental negligence, our defense against communism collapsed.

People who rush to the head of an established line of prior rights to demand access to resources without the consent of those in line before them, no matter what charitable cause they may support or accusations of past injustice they may claim, ought be regarded as opportunistic as robbers. When our courts of justice decide in EPPAıs favor we should be able to understand why and accept the courtsı decisions. I have yet to understand why some courts have let EPPAs cut in line ahead of prior owners of water rights. I accept the possibility that the courtsı judgment has fallen victim to communist delusions of central planning supremacy over individual freedom of choice.

Critics who disregard acquisition costs and the market for water diversion rights are effectively ignoring property rights. They could just as well ignore the housing market and purchase price of houses paid by home owners. They could criticize home owners for not paying (in addition to the purchase cost which may have been settled decades earlier under much different market conditions) as much as renters in the current rental market for continued access to their own homes.

Critics of Reclamation project water service ignore the right of an owner ­ in this case the federal government ­ to dedicate exclusive use of property. They could just as well ignore the right of home owners to dedicate exclusive use of their own home. They could criticize our family members for depending on our dedication of shelter use exclusively for our family as a property right we bought when we bought our home. They would reallocate our spare bedroom, calling it surplus to our "needs" and our continued possession of it "wasteful", to a "needy" homeless person.

This is criticism of property rights. Reclamation project water users are criticized for depending on congressional dedications of farm use for water rights bought by the federal government with funds authorized for the exclusive use of construction of specific Reclamation projects. Reclamation project water users are criticized for depending on water rights purchased by the federal government prior to project construction and included in the capital cost of construction for which client water users signed repayment contracts prior to construction. Disregard for this capitalized cost of water right purchase is a disregard for capitalism. It is the same disregard of property rights shown by highway robbers.

Criticism of property rights is criticism of capitalism. Critics of capitalism are not critics of communism; they aid and abet communism.

The accusation of Reclamation water "subsidy" is also based on the terms of construction cost repayment in the federal contracts with project water districts. No interest is charged on the unpaid balance. This is like getting a zero percent mortgage on a home. What a deal! Iıve never found a lender who would loan me money without charging interest. But if my partner and I ever pay off the mortgage on our house, we expect to get the title. When I paid off my car loan, the lending agency sent me the ownership title. But for those who repay the construction cost of Reclamation projects, no title. I'm not aware of any Reclamation project where the title to land and license for water has been released by the federal government to those who paid for the project.

I understand operation and maintenance of Reclamation projects are normally turned over to client water users. But the federal government always retains ownership. And by virtue of federal government ownership, federal property is always subject to being reallocated according to the whims of prevailing political lobbies. Congressional dedication of purpose for designated federal property is no more certain than the future of the political coalition that won the dedication.

If the skateboarder lobby won majority power in congress it could turn federal canals into federal skateboard parks. If the golfer lobby won majority power, federal water reservoirs would be replaced by federal golf courses. If the homeless lobby won, federal golf courses would be replaced by federal campgrounds.

It looks to me like a coalition of environmental protection, outdoor recreation, wildlife, and wilderness lobbies is the current winner in congress. I'm glad our society is so rich it has time to play. But if our society wants to use a specific federal property for a new purpose, should it not compensate the beneficiaries who are dependent on any existing designated purposes that become displaced? Are we not rich enough to buy out the existing purposes congress dedicated for that specific property? Why must we steal and destroy the existing purposes with trumped up mitigation claims?

Because congressional dedications of purpose are only promises. And our society has grown to accept a tragic expectation that promises are made to be broken.

Our society should not be surprised when congressional promises to dedicate federal property to recreation and wildlife protection purposes, including National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Wildlife Refuges, wilderness areas, etc., are eventually broken. Congress cannot keep all of its promises. Society would suffer less tragic loss of trust if it restrained congress from making so many promises.

It looks to me like farm owners have subsidized federal acquisition of water project property in return for congressional promises to renew their water supply contracts and provide drainage relief. And in the case of CVP, empty promises.

Outvoted: forced to change: second class citizen

Not that all farmers willingly subsidized federal acquisition of property. I've heard some grumbling. It's the same issue I've got about being outvoted. A farmer who doesn't want to be taxed to pay for a Reclamation project has got the same attitude toward government decision-making I've got. It stinks. I've got to change my lifestyle just to keep the majority happy. That makes me a second class citizen. A second class citizen just because I got outvoted!

Tolerance: turn down the government

I think we'd all get along a lot better if we quit using government to make second class citizens out of each other. We could up the tolerance in this country for every little bit of government that was turned down. We could up the tolerance a lot by turning down the government a lot. I'd look into ways to find relief for farmers who don't want to pay for Reclamation projects as much as I'd try to find relief for those who don't want to pay for the drug war.

Amnesty: no incarceration of government warriors

I like the idea of amnesty. It's the only good idea I can think of that I've seen come out of South Africa since Mandela's government took over. I would embrace amnesty to help end the federal government's environmental protection war on property rights. By that I mean no incarceration of government warriors. Our society won't be any safer with Gore in prison. Our society would be much healthier if it could persuade with the least amount of government force.

Withdraw public support of government wars: reparations

Public supporters of government force to save the environment from people ‹ as well as to save people from guns, drugs, dams, drains, etc. ‹ could be persuaded to withdraw their support without sending them to prison. The cycle of violence must be broken by restraining the impulse for revenge. We can regret incarcerating or threatening to incarcerate violators of environmental protection statutes that exclude intent from determination of guilt, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We can release the environmental protection war prisoners. Those who committed fraud to persecute alleged violators would not be prosecuted for civil damages if they confess. It is more important to hear the truth than to punish.

Amnesty would include reparations to environmental protection war victims paid by return of property confiscated by the federal government from them and by sale of other federal government assets as required to compensate victims for environmental takings of private property rights.

Non-violent prisoners: release

I support amnesty for government drug warriors too. Same deal. Reparations paid by the federal government, determined by state courts, paid by the sale of federal property. Empty the prisons of non-violent captives. Keep violent people in prison. Don't let them out! I think everybody could be happier. Especially if those in prison could self medicate to keep their violence under control.

Of course they wouldn't be in prison if they had their violence under control in the first place, by whatever means necessary, including drugs now designated illegal by the federal government.

Could it be possible there would be a lot fewer violent people if they could keep their violence suppressed by smoking hemp? I don't know. I'm not an expert authority on drug use. I do not have a medical education. There have been and are researchers who have studied and continue to study drug use. They've written books. I haven't read all the books, articles, and news accounts published on drug use. Undoubtedly there are some things about drug use I do not know. But we will always be learning more as we experience more of life. We make decisions using the best information we can find. Iıve found repressive, punitive persecution of freedom of individual choice of mind management must limit potential mental creativity (the antidote for chronic stupidity). Iıve found enough information to reach a political position against drug prohibition.

I can not condone drug use, because I am not an authority on the potential harm in the risk each individual assumes with their personal use of drugs. But I've been around for several decades now, and I've got a general impression all those people the federal government claims are smoking hemp are hard to find. That must be why $50 billion a year is spent to find and incarcerate them. So far we've got half a million non-violent drug prisoners, and the federal government claims there are 23 million more to catch ­ the same number it was looking for ten years ago. Whether itıs the same people or a younger generation or a little of both, I donıt know. Whether there would be more or less without drug prohibition, I donıt know. My concern is for safety and happiness, not reallocation of drug use by central planning quotas.

It looks to me if hemp smokers are violent, they would stick out like a sore thumb and be easy to find. Instead, the 23 million illegal drug users living among us seem to live so peacefully they are nearly invisible to government drug warriors. It looks to me like 45 out of 46 illegal drug users are demonstrating by living testimony that life without government drug prohibition is not only possible, it's peaceful. And I'm not sure that the other one out of 46 is violent because of illegal drug use. Maybe legal drug use: alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. Maybe crank, but not hemp. Are we really certain we would have to put up with more violence, add to the existing half a million incarcerated for violent crimes, if we repealed federal government drug prohibition?

I'm not. I've seen plenty of news reports of violent criminals captured with no mention of drug use. What drug related violence does occur seems to be mostly from lack of ready access to justice in settling commercial disputes. And ready access to justice is one of the few reasons why we have government.

It looks to me like the drug war is a hoax. It is a cruel subsidy for alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and pharmaceutical industries.

Marijuana: name switch hoax

When the federal government subsidized domestic cultivation of hemp for fiber during WW II, it didn't call it by its Mexican name ‹ marijuana. By calling it a Mexican name, I suspect federal government propaganda raises anti-Mexican xenophobia to support its criminalization of hemp. By switching to a Mexican name, fears of Mexican immigrants are exploited to turn Anglo-Saxon descendants against hemp ­ a common commercial plant cultivated for thousands of years throughout the world, legal in our country until the end of alcohol prohibition in 1937.

I suppose federal revenuers were looking for something to justify their continued employment. The congressional hearing of testimony in support of the original hemp tax, which by subsequent expansion of regulation eventually became prohibition, seems to me to have been a lot like other congressional hearings ­ staged by the committee chairman. Hearings are shows. Sometimes expert witnesses are asked to testify and sometimes not, depending on whether they support the chairman's position or not.

Politics is showmanship. Whatever show works is used. Whether or not the winning policy is supported by all available evidence. Availability is pruned to shape the evidence. Pruning the availability of evidence of benign or even beneficial uses of hemp is the same political censorship applied to benign or even beneficial uses of farm field drain water.

"Marijuana", as a Mexican name in an English speaking country, is a pejorative name. It is used by the federal government to help demonize hemp. It is part of the federal government's drug war propaganda show. It is a hoax. The name switch relies on racial bigotry and sustains the bigotry by reinforcing fear of hemp.

Illegal hemp: Prison subsidy: Eighth Amendment violation

Why has hemp remained illegal? Does it increase violence? If it does then I think such evidence would have been raised for voter consideration before passage of Prop. 215, the medical marijuana initiative. Does it suppress violence? I don't recall reading any reports on the benefits other than patient satisfaction. But the drug war censors research. It only permits research that identifies potential harm. It prunes the availability of evidence. I suspect we are deprived of potential benefits due to decades of federal government suppression of any search for benefits. Those benefits could include self administered suppression of violence.

It looks to me like any government program that tends to increase violence is a prison subsidy. Sending peaceful hemp smokers to prison where they stand a good chance of contacting Hepatitis C and consequently dying of a failed liver looks to me like cruel and unusual punishment. A violation of the Eighth Amendment of the federal government's constitution.

Legal violence: taxes

Shouldn't we study why people commit violence? Why people force others to do what they otherwise would not do. Why people use the government/state to commit legal violence. Enforce environmental protection laws. Enforce drug prohibition laws. Collect taxes.

A night in the Concord MA jail for refusing to pay a poll tax prompted Henry David Thoreau to write "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience". Although Thoreau is remembered mostly by naturalists for his book on Walden Pond, "Civil Disobedience" inspired many seekers of freedom, including Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Thoreau could not bring himself to obey tax law that forced him to support a government that enforced compliance with the Fugitive Slave Act and was at war with Mexico. Against his wishes, his family paid his fine and he was released the next day. Soon after, Thoreau was asked to guide a troop of children on a huckleberry hunt. While hunting huckleberries, miles from the town of Concord, he noticed the state was nowhere to be seen.

Peace in nature: away from government

Peace in nature would seem to be dependent on the absence of government. Which is why my past explorations into the federal lands of America's Southwest with my family, including two dogs, avoided National Parks. I got the distinct impression that the National Parks are full of uniformed park rangers, patrolling the park to find violators of a multitude of federal government statutes, too many to guess by common sense. If I was unwilling to comply with dog leash rules, I could just stay away. And by staying away, I didn't have to worry about violating any rules I didn't know about.

Rules change: legal violence

I could have also stayed out of federal government civil service. I chose to take the chance I could implicitly comply with its rules because I thought its employment rules might be subject to less arbitrary change than those of other potential employers. I thought I had a better chance of being appreciated for my work. Not my appearance. Not my heritage. Not my gender. Not my diet. Not my drainage. Not my eloquence. Not my vocabulary. Not my recall of abstract names and correct spelling, including those of people. Not my quick wit. Not my religion. Not my politics. Maybe my willingness to commit to an obligation, as demonstrated by my honorable active duty service. Maybe because I had the good sense to have never been a member of the Communist Party or any other organization advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government. Maybe because my solutions to engineering problems would be appreciated.

But rules do change over time. Federal employment exclusion shifted from communists to drug users. Inclusion shifted from political neutrality to political astuteness and expedience. Rather than being tolerated, individual opinion became feared like a loose cannon. Too often when I expressed my opinion, like "Al Gore is an idiot" and "EDF is in the lunatic fringe", fellow workers scurried away, discussions stopped in disconcerting silence.

The federal government changed its rules. But that is what governments do. Rule changes betray individuals who choose long term investments ­ like civil service employment, Reclamation project repayment, and property ownership ­ based on expectations that the terms of the relationship would remain the same. Without grandfather protection from rule changes, those who invested their lives based on prior rules are cheated.

Rule changing without grandfather protection initiates force on individuals by fooling them into working on unanticipated and possibly unwanted and counter-productive programs. This use of government force is legal violence.

(continued after Political Philosophy)