San Diego County, CA November 7, 2000 Election
Smart Voter

Statement of Principles

By Gary W. Pietila

Candidate for Member of the State Assembly; District 75

This information is provided by the candidate
As a Libertarian I fully support the Libertarian Party of California's platform. In essence it states that we support Individual Liberty tempered by Individual Responsibility and minimal government intrusion into peoples lives.

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle; that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant the government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that, where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual; namely: (1) the right to life -- accordingly, we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly, we oppose all attempts by governments to abridge the freedoms of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly, we oppose all government interferences with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass and fraud.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.


Rights define the boundaries of legitimate human conduct. Such boundaries are necessary to clearly distinguish actions which may properly be opposed by force from actions which may properly be defended by force. Only to the extent that such boundaries are recognized and respected can conflict between people be avoided and a just civilization achieved.

Only individuals have rights. There are no group rights, community rights, or rights accruing to any government body. Individuals, whether acting alone or as part of a group or government, must not interfere with the exercise of rights by others. Currently some people define "rights" as a requirement that they receive whatever they desire, no matter at whose expense. We hold that no one has an inherent right to anything which requires access to the life, property or labor of another person. Thus, there can be no right to health care, jobs, housing or other benefits. The recognition, respect, and protection by law of individual rights is necessary for the existence of a free society.

We recognize the following rights:

  • RIGHT TO LIFE: People have the right to be free from those who would physically injure or kill them. No one has the right to take the life of an innocent person. The right to life does not preclude the right to self-defense or the defense of another under imminent attack.
  • RIGHT TO LIBERTY: People have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, to pursue any lifestyle or course of action they wish, while taking responsibility for their actions and not violating the rights of others in the process.
  • RIGHT TO PROPERTY: "Property rights" are inseparable from "human rights." To lose property is to lose that portion of life expended for that property. Property is an extension of self-ownership and is comprised of those goods, services, materials, products of labor, and real property which are acquired without the use of coercion, trespass or fraud. One has the right to use, maintain, improve, control, protect, consume, destroy, or dispose of one's own property as one sees fit, recognizing that one may not violate the rights of others. The defense of property is a form of self-defense.

Members of the Libertarian Party do not necessarily advocate or condone any of the practices which our policies would make legal. Our exclusion of moral approval or disapproval is deliberate: people's rights must be recognized; the wisdom of any course of peaceful action is a matter for the acting individual(s) to decide. Personal responsibility is discouraged by society's routinely denying people the opportunity to exercise it. Libertarian policies will create a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions.


While recognizing that our society, shaped by government interventions, is complex and resistant to change, unless otherwise stated, the actions called for in the planks that follow are to be taken as quickly and efficiently as possible without interruption or delay.


No conflict exists between civil order and individual rights. Both concepts are based on the same fundamental principle; that no individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group or government. Governments must be unconditionally limited to prevent the infringement of individual rights..


To commit a crime, one must infringe upon the rights of another.
Victimless "crime" laws are a legislative attempt to forcibly limit
the lifestyle choices of individuals.

We therefore support the following:

A. The repeal of all laws restricting the voluntary exchange of
goods or services.

B. The repeal of all laws restricting or controlling any form of

C. The repeal of all laws which control or prohibit any consensual sexual activity, or soliciting such activity, including homosexuality and prostitution, among consenting adults.

D. The repeal of all laws restricting or controlling the production, transportation, sale, possession, or use of any food, food supplement, or drug.

E. The repeal of laws that create so-called crimes of intent, such as standing on a corner, driving by a location more than once, or other activities deemed "suspicious."

F. The end of court injunctions that criminalize otherwise legal acts such as wearing certain colors, carrying pagers, or using cellular phones.

G. The immediate pardon and release, if incarcerated, of all persons convicted of any victimless "crime" not involving a violation of another's rights. The expunging of all arrest and conviction records related to such "victimless" crimes, in addition to the nullification of the laws defining such acts as "crimes."


While we do not advocate the desecration of the national or state
flag, we oppose any laws prohibiting the desecration of any flag and
we oppose any constitutional amendment giving federal, state or local
government the power to enact such laws. However, we do support the
property rights of flag owners.

The United States Supreme Court has held that each community has the
power to censor distribution of materials considered to be obscene
according to "community standards." We hold that obscenity is a matter
of individual taste and that government should not prohibit something
merely because some people are offended by it.

We support the repeal of all laws restricting or controlling the right
of adults to make, distribute, possess or view sexually explicit
motion pictures, publications and other materials. We also support the
repeal of all laws prohibiting the electronic receipt of such

We deplore the practice of government invasion of newsrooms, or the
premises of any other non-suspect third parties, such as lawyers,
doctors and psychiatrists, in the name of law enforcement.

We condemn court orders prohibiting press and electronic media
coverage of criminal proceedings. In addition, the media should not be
prohibited from communicating with prisoners, without due process.

We support the complete deregulation of television, radio, cable, the
Internet and all other forms of communication.

Since we favor application of the First Amendment to public entities,
while upholding the right of private enterprises to make their own
rules governing their own property, we oppose the enactment-at
colleges and universities that are primarily tax-funded-of speech
codes that ban language that is deemed offensive.

Government proposals to finance and control political campaigns are an
encroachment upon freedom of expression. These proposals limit
financial support of campaigns for candidates or issues, and thus
restrict the individual's ability to disseminate his or her views.

We oppose any government action that permits political activities in
violation of private property rights, such as the circulation of
petitions in private shopping malls against the wishes of the owners.


We oppose any government restriction, regulation, or censorship of
speech, literature, or any other medium of expression. It is
especially important in a free society that government be prevented
from restricting what may be said about government itself.
Specifically, we oppose any use of governmental law enforcement
agencies to violate the privacy of, or interference with, those
engaged in peaceful political activities. We oppose government
violation of the privacy of client-professional relationships.

The individual's privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak
should not be infringed by the government. No congressional committee,
government agency, or grand jury shall have the power to compel any
person to appear or testify.

Government-mandated record-keeping by private parties is not only a
violation of privacy, but also a form of involuntary servitude, and
should be abolished. Correspondence, bank, and other financial
transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications,
employment and other voluntarily maintained records should not be open
to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in
these records, except through due process in criminal cases involving
violations of the rights of others.

We support policies that will leave the electronic transmission of
data and information in the hands of the people. Therefore, we oppose
government policies on encryption, such as the Clipper Chip proposal,
which would guarantee that the government could conduct surveillance
of electronic transmissions by mandating or encouraging
government-readable methods of encryption. Such government-imposed
standards will foster routine and regular surveillance of private
communications by agents of the government.

We favor repeal of the U.S. ban on export of Clipper-free encryption
devices produced by American companies. Government-imposed encryption
standards together with an export embargo on devices not containing
Clipper chips will inhibit commercial development of new
privacy-enhancing products.

We also oppose any government policy on digital transmission of
telephone messages that requires the installation of
surveillance-facilitating software in telephone switching equipment in
order to expose personal telephone-calling patterns and credit card
purchases to the view of the government. Such information should be

So long as the national census and all federal, state, and other
government agency compilations of data on an individual continue to
exist, they should be compiled only with the consent of the persons
from whom the data are sought.

We call for the repeal of the law requiring the Department of Motor
Vehicles to collect an individual's social security number or thumb
print for the purposes of obtaining a driver license or register a
vehicle or vessel.

We oppose laws requiring parents to register the births of their


No individual's rights should be denied or abridged by the laws of the
United States or any state or locality on account of sex, race, color,
creed, age, national origin, marital status, sexual preference,
physical handicap or learning disability. We affirm that government
should not use quota systems based on any of the above criteria.

We oppose all governmental attempts to regulate private choice in
association, including discrimination in employment, housing, and the
use of privately-owned "public" accommodations. The right to trade
includes the right not to trade -- for any reason whatsoever. We also
call for the repeal of the so-called Civil Rights Act of 1991 whose
self-contradictory provisions force employers to use hiring quotas on
the basis of race and sex in order to avoid "disparate impact"
lawsuits, but whose provisions make it illegal to use such hiring

We call for repeal of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which
mandates costly expenditures of taxpayers' money for new equipment and
jobs for the physically and mentally handicapped (including those who
are drug- or alcohol-dependent). Indeed, requiring employers to
provide benefits discourages employers from hiring low-skilled or
disabled people.


We hold that all human beings have rights, not merely the citizens of
a particular country. Although private owners have the right to
restrict others from trespassing on their property, government
restrictions on the liberty of travel, residence, and employment, such
as immigration and emigration laws, mandatory identification papers,
and work permits, are violations of human rights, and we call for
their abolition.

Therefore, we:

A. oppose mandatory reporting by employers of their employees'

B. oppose fining employers who hire so-called illegal aliens.

C. oppose wholesale dragnets that round up immigrants and other
people from their homes or workplaces.

D. oppose any requirement that a first-time applicant for a driver
license must show proof of legal residency.

E. oppose any requirement that employers who hire so-called illegal
aliens forfeit their assets to the government.

F. oppose any requirement that all employees in California must
carry an identification card.

G. oppose the use of the California National Guard or the U.S.
military to control California's border with Mexico.

We defend the rights of noncitizens of the U.S. to seek work, trade,
and live within this country, just as we defend current citizens when
they wish to exercise these same rights. We oppose attempts to violate
the rights of so-called illegal aliens because they receive the
benefit of certain government programs. In any conflict between rights
and programs, we support abolition of the government program and
affirmation of individual rights. Most people come to this country to
work, not to collect welfare; nevertheless, we oppose welfare payments
to them just as we oppose welfare payments to all other persons.

We uphold the right of private property owners to provide sanctuary to
persons who face arrest and deportation as aliens, and we applaud
those who offer such sanctuary.


We oppose the forced imposition or designation by any level of
government of any particular language or languages as the official
language of the society.

Where governments exist, we expect them to make use of the lingua (any
of various languages used as common or commercial tongues among people
of diverse speech) in a pluralistic society. When persons wish
translations of government documents, they should pay the full cost.


There are no crimes against society, the State, or the people. There
are only crimes against individuals, and these are crimes of violence
or threat of violence, property loss, and fraud.

We believe that the so-called legislative police power, which was
incorporated into the American justice system upon its formation,
should be completely eliminated from American jurisprudence. The state
should not have the power to define public necessity, public policy,
the public interest or to make legislation related thereto.

The judicial process should be an earnest attempt -- by due process of
law -- to extract reasonable restitution from a person convicted of a
crime and to convey that restitution to the victim, to imprison or
exclude criminals from society when necessary, to hold persons liable
for damage they do, and to fairly settle contract disputes.

The failure of the government judicial system to apply these
principles has led to the inability of its courts to administer
justice and to the near collapse of public confidence in the American
judicial system.

We support the concept that law should impose penalties proportional
to the gravity of the violation of others' rights, and prison
sentences should be served in their entirety, unless the victim
pardons the perpetrator. Unfortunately, the existing
Three-Strikes-and-You're-Out law fails to focus on the truly violent
career criminals who are the greatest threat to their victims.
Extended prison sentences and life imprisonment for multiple criminal
acts should be reserved for perpetrators of first- and second-degree
murder and attempted murder; kidnaping and attempted kidnaping;
forcible rape and attempted forcible rape; armed robbery and attempted
armed robbery; mayhem and attempted mayhem; and aggravated assault.
Prison space for these enhanced sentences should be made by pardoning
those prisoners who were incarcerated for victimless crimes

All persons should be equal before the law and entitled to due process
of law. Due process should determine innocence or guilt in a manner
designed to protect the individual rights of all persons concerned,
both the accused and the accuser. We hold that individuals may settle
their differences outside the court, if both so agree.

Until such time as persons are proven guilty of crimes, their
individual rights shall be accorded full respect. We support the
repeal of all civil asset forfeiture laws, which assume that property
has committed an offense and thus can be seized by government agents
without due process of law. We believe that no one should be denied
their property as punishment for a criminal act unless convicted of a
crime and then having a specific fine levied by the court. We
therefore advocate the following judicial reforms:

A. Full protection of the rights of the accused, including complete
access to all available records, information, or evidence (held by
the courts or voluntarily submitted) to be used in the prosecution
of the case.

B. Full restitution of loss incurred by persons arrested, indicted,
tried, imprisoned, or otherwise injured in the course of criminal
proceedings against them which do not result in their conviction by
the accuser, be it a law enforcement agency or private individual.

C. The termination of all "preventive detention" procedures. No
individual shall be detained or otherwise denied freedom of
movement without formal charges being filed immediately following

D. Where governments exist, the right to trial by jury regardless
of the classification of the judicial procedure, including a
finding of contempt of court, shall not be abridged.

E. All jury trial findings shall be by unanimous decision, except
that the parties to an action or proceeding may consent to a
verdict by a majority of the panel.

F. The abolition of the current practice of forced jury duty; we
favor all-volunteer juries. In addition, we advocate that all
juries in actions to which the government is a party, shall be
instructed that they have the right to judge not only the facts of
the case, but also the justice of the law. Juries may hold all laws
invalid that are, according to their conscience, unjust, and find
no violation of such laws. Jurors, rather than the judge, should
set the sentence for a guilty offender up to the maximum allowed by

G. That no persons, other than government employees whose actions
as an agent of the government have a direct bearing on the case at
hand, be compelled to appear or testify before a grand jury; nor be
denied independent legal counsel within the chambers of a grand
jury proceeding. The issuance of "immunity from prosecution" by the
court must not be used as an excuse to deny a person his
constitutional rights.

H. Recognition of the right of private parties to conduct, at their
own expense, prosecutions against those they allege have victimized
them. Public prosecutors should not have the authority to grant
immunity from private prosecution to alleged perpetrators; thus we
advocate an end to the practice of plea-bargaining without the
consent of the victim.

I. The repeal of all laws extending criminal or civil liability to
producers or vendors whose products may be used by others in the
commission of a crime or tort.

J. The repeal of all laws establishing any category of crime
applicable to a particular age group, including laws setting
drinking ages and curfews, and an end to the practice of
incarcerating children accused of no crime.

K. The abolition of special penalties imposed for crimes committed
against police officers or government employees

L The trying of juveniles under the same procedures as adults.
However, those convicted of violent crimes would be held by the
California Youth Authority until age 18, then transferred to state
prison for the remainder of their sentences.

M Child abuse cases should be considered criminal cases rather than
administrative proceedings. Hence, in such cases, the accused is
entitled to the presumption of innocence and protection against
arbitrary governmental searches and seizures.

N The serious crime of forcible rape should not be confused with
cases of psychological pressure or persuasion. Nor should it be
confused with cases in which an alleged victim was voluntarily
under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, but was not
incapacitated. "Psychological pressure or persuasion" shall not
include threats of violence.

O The right of any person convicted of a crime to seek restitution,
in a separate legal action, for any violation of his or her rights.

P An end to the defenses of insanity or diminished capacity, and to
the practice of pre-trial insanity hearings to determine capacity
to stand trial.

Q The right of defendants and their counsel to inform jurors of the
jury's power to nullify any law, and of the possible sentences for
each offense charged.

R In private lawsuits, the loser should pay the costs and
litigation expenses of the prevailing party, at the discretion of
the judge.

S The abolition of the current practice of courts receiving a
percentage of fines imposed.


No person has any special right to make arrest greater than that of
any other person. The government monopoly on police protection puts
the power of violence in the hands of society's dominant groups, a
practice which inevitably harms minority groups. We note with alarm
the increasing numbers of individuals shot by police, as well as
growing police harassment and brutality. We therefore call for
decentralization of police protection to the neighborhood level
whenever full privatization is not possible. We oppose the expansion
of federal police forces anywhere, and particularly into California.

We oppose police officers using unnecessary force on the disorderly or
the criminally accused or handing out what they may consider to be
instant punishments on the streets. We further deny that police have
such inherent authority. Instant-punishment policies deprive the
accused of important checks on government power-juries and the
judicial process.


We favor an end to the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" which implies
that the State, and its agents, can do no wrong, and holds that the
State, contrary to the tradition of redress of grievances, may not be
sued without its permission nor be held accountable for its actions
under civil law.

In judicial proceedings, all government agents must accept liability,
both civil and criminal, for their actions, negating the cloak of
"official duty" as an excuse. Neither government agencies nor their
representatives shall be exempted from laws, statutes and regulations
applicable to the citizenry

We oppose payment of government (tax) dollars to satisfy judgments
against agents of the State.


The health and physical well-being of individuals are not proper
concerns of government. These should be matters of personal choice and
responsibility. The State should not be involved in the regulation of
the profession of medicine or in the delivery of health care.

Therefore we advocate the following reforms:

A. The repeal of those laws and regulations which restrict and
inhibit the practice of lay midwifery and planned out-of-hospital
births and which permit harassment of lay midwives and home birth

B. The repeal of laws and regulations which discourage the
development of privately funded medical facilities such as women's
health clinics and free-standing birth centers.

C. The repeal of laws and regulations which prohibit and otherwise
curtail the selection and practice of unorthodox medical

D. An end to all mandatory licensing and certification requirements
for the practice of medicine.

E. In order to revive price competition and consumer
cost-consciousness in the medical industry, we would provide tax
breaks not only for employer-provided health plans (whose value is
not currently taxed as income), but also individual tax credits so
that families and individuals can choose their own health plans.

F. An end to government subsidies to, and regulation of, all
schools of medicine, nursing, and the allied health care
professions. An individual should have the right to choose among
available health practices. Similarly, he or she has the right to
refuse or reject treatment or other care. Therefore, we oppose any
form of forced or mandated medication such as fluoridation of
water, compulsory vaccination, and involuntary sterilization. We
further oppose any attempts to impose compulsory hospitalization.
We support the right of an individual to determine his or her own
medical treatment whenever he or she wishes. In particular, we call
for the immediate end of all restrictions by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration as well as state and local agencies. As financing of
medical and health care is the responsibility of the individual,
tax monies should not be used to fund it. We therefore oppose:

1. tax supported medical care, abortion services, and research

2. grants and subsidies to members of the medical profession; and

3. all government-funded medical programs such as Medi-Cal and
neo-natal care for infants.

We oppose measures that would extend health insurance to uninsured
persons through taxpayers' funds; by requiring businesses to
provide insurance; or by requiring insurance companies to insure
persons or illnesses they choose not to insure.

G. Inasmuch as medical evidence has not established that AIDS is
casually transmitted, we oppose all attempts to abridge the
individual rights of persons with AIDS.

H. Since laws making sterile needles unavailable have contributed
to the spread of AIDS and other diseases, we call for the repeal of
those laws.


The State of California should not regulate, prohibit, subsidize or
encourage any reproductive choice. We defend the right of all persons
to privacy in and control over every aspect of their biological
nature, such as contraception, termination of pregnancy, surrogate
motherhood, artificial insemination, cloning and free choice in all
consensual sexual relations.


We oppose the draft, registration for the draft, and any form of
compulsory service as slavery, the most fundamental violation of
individual rights and also unnecessary for the maintenance of a strong
national defense.


We support the rights of individuals to form private relationships as
they see fit, either by contract or by mutual agreement. We regard
marriage as one such private relationship. The State of California
should not dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any such private
relationship. To implement this principle, we advocate:

A. The repeal of all marriage and marriage dissolution laws and
their replacement by contracts where desired by the parties.

B. Property not specified as "community property" not being
presumed as such.

C. The repeal of all alimony laws.

D. The recognition in law of marriage contracts as an addition to,
or replacement for, marriage and marriage dissolution laws.

E.The right of all consenting adults to form marriage contracts
without regard to gender, sexual preference, degree of
consanguinity, or number of parties to said contracts.


Governments at all levels are intruding on the integrity of families
and households. We support the rights of families and households as
contractual institutions to be free of government interference. Such
governmental interference has undermined the value of families and
households as cultural institutions of love, nurture, companionship,
kinship, and personal development by forcing families and households
to conform to rigid, inflexible design. Moreover, we condemn the
usurpation by government of activities long carried on by families and
households. This usurpation is accomplished through "morals laws,"
youth curfews, government welfare programs, child protection services,
and public schools. We further accuse government of designing
educational programs that place civic and moral education under the
control of politicians, and of designing welfare laws that destroy
families and households.

We call for the repeal of all family leave laws, which impose the cost
of mandatory benefits on business and industry.


Because the right to life, liberty, and property implies a right of
defense of self and property, and a right to acquire and maintain the
tools to exercise such self defense, and because an armed citizenry is
the final defense against government tyranny, we support:

A. The repeal of laws regulating the ownership and bearing of arms,
including automatic or so-called assault weapons.

B. The elimination of registration and all other government records
pertaining to ownership of arms.

C. The repeal of laws requiring permission from any government
agency for any purpose relating to arms and ammunition.

Further, we oppose extension of liability to the manufacturers or
vendors of arms for crimes committed by the users of such arms.


We defend the rights of individuals to engage or not engage in any
religious activities which do not violate the rights of others. In
order to defend religious freedoms, we advocate a strict separation of
church and state. We oppose government actions which either aid or
attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the
same reason we oppose all taxation.


We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to a mental
institution. The power of the State of California to institutionalize
an individual who has not been convicted of a crime is a violation of
the individual's rights.

We further advocate:

A. The repeal of all laws permitting involuntary psychiatric
treatment, or forbidding voluntary termination of treatment.

B. The discontinuation of all government or government-sponsored
programs for observational study, experimentation, or treatment.

C. An end to all involuntary treatment by such means as
electro-shock, psycho-surgery, drug therapy, and aversion therapy.

D. The privatization of all state-financed mental institutions.


We oppose the regulation of alcoholic beverages by the State of
California. Specifically, we oppose setting a drinking age or using
zoning or land use laws to restrict the placement of bars or liquor
stores. We also oppose road blocks that stop and detain sober
motorists on public roads. Private road owners should be free to
exclude alcohol abusers or others from their roads for safety or other


The selection of a candidate by a political party is a matter in which
the State has no legitimate interest.

We therefore oppose the system of tax-financed primary elections and
call for the nomination of all candidates without governmental
supervision or intervention, as a private matter involving only the
members of the party concerned.

We also oppose laws which forbid partisan political designations in
local elections and, at the state level, for the office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction.

We further oppose all proposals to regulate the broadcasting of
election results. and all laws governing the broadcast coverage of
campaigns, including the fairness doctrine, the equal time rule, and
the reasonable access provision.

We oppose any limitation on the amount of money an individual or
corporation can spend supporting any candidate or ballot issue on the
federal, state, or local level. We also oppose the public financing of
election campaigns and the mandatory reporting of campaign donations
and expenditures.

The ballot choice in California elections does not always offer a true
difference of philosophy between candidates. The electorate often has
no positive feelings toward any candidate, but, on the contrary, often
has distinctly negative feelings toward all candidates. Therefore the
Libertarian Party of California endorses:

A. Placing on all election ballots, beneath each election office,
the option "none of the above is acceptable."

B. The provision that any elective office remain vacant if the
category "none of the above is acceptable" receives a plurality of
votes, until a subsequent election to fill the office is held.

We call for the abolition of the State Constitutional Office of
Lieutenant Governor, which has no real purpose.


We oppose a full-time legislature in California and support efforts to
make the job of legislator at most a part-time one with drastically
reduced salaries, staff, and expenses.


We recognize the right to political secession. This includes the right
of secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals.
Exercise of this right, like the exercise of all rights, does not
remove legal and moral obligations not to violate the rights of
others. Those who wish to secede should not have to obtain permission
of those from whom they wish to secede.


Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others.
Government interference can only harm such free activity. Thus we
oppose all government intervention in the economy. Any law enforcement
in economic matters must be limited to protecting property rights,
adjudicating disputes, enforcing voluntary contracts, and providing a
framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by the
State of California to redistribute wealth or to control or manage
trade are inconsistent with a free society.


Taxation is government's confiscation of property of its citizens and,
because of its non-voluntary nature, cannot be justified, regardless
of the purpose for which the proceeds are to be used. Therefore, we
oppose taxation of any kind.

To that end, we support any and all initiatives to cut or abolish any
tax. We call for:

A. The repeal of all income taxes.

B. The repeal of all sales and use taxes, including special taxes
on so-called sinful activities.

C. The repeal of all corporate and business taxes and fees,
including special burdens on business inventories and out-of-state
business firms.

D. The repeal of all gift and inheritance taxes.

E. The repeal of all property taxes.

F. The abolition of all tax-collecting agencies, including the
Franchise Tax Board and Board of Equalization.

We oppose all suggestions to split the owners' property tax rolls in
order to increase the burden on business property, and to increase

We oppose all efforts to repeal or undermine existing laws requiring
greater than a simple majority vote to raise taxes.

We further oppose any compulsory withholding of any taxes or fees from
the paychecks of California workers.

We advocate that so-called "public services" be funded in the same
manner as private organizations -- through voluntary contributions and
charges for services forwhich the user has voluntarily contracted.


We recognize the right of property owners to control, use, transfer or
dispose of their property in any manner that does not violate the
rights of others. We believe that rights to land and any related
water, oil or mineral rights are entitled to the same respect and
protection. We reject any governmental assertion of "police powers" to
regulate private property under the guise of "furthering the public
health, safety, morals, or general welfare."

Therefore, we advocate -- on a statewide basis whenever possible --
the following:

A. The abolition of zoning laws and building codes, which may be
replaced by restrictive covenants, among other voluntary means.

B. The abolition of all rent control laws, regulations, boards,
mandatory low-income housing quotas in new developments, and all
condominium conversion restrictions.

C. The abolition of the Department of Real Estate whose regulations
restrict and delay urban condominium developments and rural
residential subdivisions and commercial land developments and whose
licensing procedures for real estate brokers limit occupational
mobility and competition in the market for the sale of real

D. The repeal of eminent domain and all forms of condemnation of

E. The privatization of government-held lands, including parks and
beaches, and the abolition of the California Coastal Commission and
all other regional land use agencies.

F. The adoption of private remedies, including civil legal action,
for redress of property rights violations.

G. The abolition of any restrictions on a landlord's right to
maintain "adults only" rental units.

H. The end to government mandated privileges for the handicapped,
such as reserved parking spaces, special access ramps and special
rest rooms on private property. We are confident that private
property owners, either through their search for a broader market
for their services, or out of admirable charitable inclinations,
will provide an ample supply of such facilities.


We reject the idea that the financing and control of education is a
proper function of government, and call for the privatization of
public education in California.

Therefore, we advocate the following:

A. An end to compulsory busing.

B. An end to compulsory school attendance.

C. An end to interference with home schooling, in particular an end
to the policy in some counties of not allowing home schooling
parents to file private school affidavits, and an end to the effort
by local truant officers and social workers to control who can
teach and what they can teach.

D. Repeal of the Proposition 98 funding guarantee for K-14 public

E. Unlimited tax credit, equal to the amount of the assistance, for
any individual or business sponsoring a person in an educational

F. An end to licensing and regulation of private and parochial

G. Allowing students to attend any school regardless of district

H. Resisting the introduction of federally mandated or encouraged
national education standards.

I. An end to government- or tax-funded pre-school programs.

J. A replacement of tax funding of government schools, at all
levels, with tuition or other voluntary means.

K. An end to government subsidy of private education and an end to
all government subsidies to students, such as Pell Grants and the
federal student loan program.

L. An end to tax-financed research (such as research in military
hardware and techniques, farming techniques and applications of
high technology) in California educational institutions.

M. Retention of tax-exempt status for all private schools,
including religiously-affiliated schools.

N. Abolition of California's monopoly lottery system for finance of


Artistic expression and its development should not be a concern of the
State. Such a concern is an attempt to mandate aesthetic judgment and

There should be no involvement of the State in the arts, neither a
supportive nor negative role. As we oppose censorship, so we oppose
government subsidies, grants and commissions to both individual
artists and organizations such as tax-supported museums.

Taxation of any individual to support another -- whether an artist or
not -- is a form of theft. Taxation of an artist to support another
artist is a form of censorship.

Therefore we oppose all government programs concerning the arts, such
as the California Arts Council, and urge their prompt dissolution.


Government welfare programs violate the individual rights of two
groups: those who have their property coercively taken from them and
given to others, and those who receive this stolen property and whose
economic lives are, thus, extensively controlled by the State. The
need of one person is not a claim on another, and we therefore urge an
end to government welfare programs.

We believe that ending government interference in the economy will
greatly decrease the need for welfare.

The current oppressive burden of taxation and government provision of
welfare impair and stifle the ability of people to make donations to
meet the needs of those who cannot support themselves.

We also recognize that there exists a large group of oppressed people
whose very survival is currently dependent on welfare programs. This
group was largely created by State action. Many groups in our society
are subsidized with tax money, but only the poor are blamed for it,
even though their potential jobs are destroyed by minimum wage and
licensing laws and their homes are destroyed by Community
Redevelopment Agencies.

We advocate the development of private voluntary programs to aid the
dependent and oppressed to become truly independent, self-supporting,
productive individuals.

We therefore call for:

A. An end to participation by the State of California in the Food
Stamp, school lunch and Medi-Cal programs.

B. The end of State aid to families with dependent children, State
aid to the disabled, and general relief programs.

C. The repeal of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

D. The privatization of state, county, and district hospitals and
other government-funded health services.

E.The privatization of government-funded job training, retraining,
and employment development programs.

F. The privatization of state-supported child care.

G. The non-adoption by the State of California of welfare programs
terminated by the federal government.


When fires, floods, earthquakes and storms bring disaster,
Californians should look to self-help, mutual aid, charity and
voluntarily purchased private insurance for relief. To seek relief
through government subsidies is to impose a further disaster on
taxpayers and on the economy as a whole. Such government subsidies
also encourage people to live and work in disaster-prone areas (at the
expense of others who are more prudent). Those who choose to dwell in
or start businesses in risky areas should, when disaster comes, assume
the responsibility for their choices. They should not count on
coercing others to bail them out.

When disaster strikes, imposing price controls or rationing is
counterproductive. It deprives property owners of their right to
dispose of goods at a voluntarily agreed-upon price, and it leads to
artificial, government-imposed shortages of goods that are in great


We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and reaffirm the right
to private ownership of, and contracts for, gold. We favor abolition
of government fiat money and compulsory government unit of account. We
favor the use of a free-market commodity standard, such as gold coins
denominated by units of weight.

We favor deregulation of financial institutions and other businesses
by ending the following:

A. Requiring the chartering of banks.

B. State usury laws.

C. The limiting of branch banking.

D. The governmental definition of different classes of financial

E. The proscription of types of business which financial
institutions are allowed to conduct including the underwriting and
sale of insurance.

F. The prohibition of branches of out-of-state banks.

G. All laws or regulations controlling, regulating, or prohibiting
the raising of funds or the sale of securities by an individual,
partnership or corporation for any legal business purpose.

H. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Community Reinvestment Act
and other measures that force banks and mortgage companies to
fulfill quotas in making mortgage loans, and the federally
sponsored lending code drawn up by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development that seeks to impose such quotas under the
guise of voluntary social responsibility. Such measures enforce
governmental group preferences and will artificially channel scarce
capital into unproductive projects.


Fundamental principles of justice require that persons be held
accountable for the harm they cause others. We therefore call for
individuals to be liable for damages intentionally or negligently (and
proximately) caused by themselves or their property. Employers may be
liable for injuries to their employees caused by the employer's
property in the course of employment; but employees may voluntarily
consent to assume the risk of any occupational hazards of which they
have reasonable notice.

We hold that fault and causation should be the basis of liability in
tort. We therefore oppose all governmental no-fault programs. We
further oppose government-imposed rules that would base tort liability
on any sort of cost-benefit analysis.

We oppose the legal doctrine that it is a tort to induce a party to
breach a contract. Liability should attach only under the laws of
contracts to the party who is in breach -- never to a third party for
mere advice or persuasion.

We call for the abolition of the legal doctrine of strict liability.
No action should lie against a manufacturer, distributor, or builder
for harm resultant from use of his product without proof of fault.
This is not intended to preclude any action where a consumer alleges
breach of a sales contract or express warranty.

We call for applying joint-and-several liability solely to cases in
which the defendants actually acted in concert or agreed by contract
to be bound jointly and severally. We condemn the common practice of
applying this doctrine to independent actors in an attempt to steal
from "deep pockets."

We call for the abolition of "class action" suits by classes that are
involuntarily created but we uphold the right of consenting plaintiffs
to voluntarily join their suits together.

We oppose all government-imposed ceilings on damage awards as unjust
denials of the principle of responsibility for one's deeds and as
denials of just redress of harm. In addition, we oppose proposals to
limit attorneys' prices or fees, contingent or otherwise.

We call for repeal of the Unfair Competition Act (UCA). No attorney,
public or private, should be allowed to bring suit against a company
for marketing practices, without representing a named plaintiff. No
such action should succeed, absent proof that a real consumer has
actually been harmed or misled.

We call for repeal of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of
1975 (MICRA). Artificially imposed limitations on recovery for actual
and proven wrongs are inappropriate mechanisms to lower medical
malpractice insurance premiums.


We hold that individuals and business firms that declare bankruptcy
are not fulfilling their contractual obligations to their creditors.
The government should cease providing an avenue through bankruptcy
laws for violation of the rights of those creditors who have provided
goods or performed services and are entitled to payment under the
terms of the contract.

In the case of insolvency of a business enterprise, we recognize the
need for legal means by which assets may be liquidated and debts
discharged, especially where initiated by creditors. Though we believe
that each individual should bear the risk and cost of failure, it is a
legitimate function of the law to prescribe means to preserve assets
and protect the security interests of claimants from fraudulent or
preferential conveyances. The current state of the law, however,
serves more to create excessive exemptions by which the bankrupt
debtor may retain substantial assets while escaping responsibility for
legitimate obligations.

Accordingly we call for reform of existing bankruptcy law to severely
restrict the extent and nature of assets that may be exempted from
distribution to creditors. We encourage and applaud the use of private
mediators to assist debtors to work out solutions that are acceptable
to both debtors and creditors.


We recognize that transit service has become a major problem in many
areas. This problem can be solved properly only through voluntary
action in the free market. Governmental interference in transit
services has been characterized by monopolistic restrictions and gross

We therefore advocate the following:

A. The repeal of all laws restricting transit competition, such as
the granting of taxicab and bus monopolies and the prohibition of
private jitney services.

B. The repeal of Clean Air Act rules that require auto trip
reduction. These rules fine employers who do not force their
employees to participate in car pools, take mass transit, bicycle,
walk, work four-day weeks, or telecommute.

C. The privatization of all public roads, freeways, waterways, and
publicly-owned transit systems, and until such time as the roadways
are privatized, the contracting out to private enterprise of the
functions of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Caltrans and other
transportation agencies.

D. An end to government financing of mass transit projects.

E. An end to government regulation of private transit organizations
and to government favors, including subsidies and access to powers
of eminent domain.

F. The transfer to private ownership of airports and air traffic

G. Allowing foreign transportation service companies to offer
commercial service in the United States.

H. The privatization of Amtrak and Conrail, and the return of
America's railroad system to private ownership without government
regulation or subsidies.

I. The abolition of state and local agencies such as the California
Public Utilities Commission, the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, the California Department of Transportation, the Bay
Area Rapid Transit District, the Metropolitan Transit Authority,
and various other local and regional transit authorities.

J. The repeal of laws mandating that manufacturers or vehicle
owners install seat belts, air bags, or other restraints. We also
oppose laws requiring the use of such devices.

K. The repeal of laws mandating motorcycle, bicycle, or
all-terrain-vehicle helmet use.


In order to achieve a free economy in which government victimizes no
one for the benefit of anyone else, we oppose all government
subsidies. Relief from taxation is not a subsidy. The promotion and
development of private business should be in the hands of marketplace
entrepreneurs. We therefore call for the abolition of all agencies
that distribute special privileges and subsidies to business and
farming concerns.

In particular, we call for the elimination of the state government's
principle dispenser of welfare to business, the Department of
Commerce, and with its demise, the elimination of the Office of
Business Development, the Office of Small Business with its government
loan programs, the Office of Local Development, the Office of Foreign
Investment, the Office of Competitive Technology, the California Film
Commission, and the Office of Tourism. We favor the free market in the
electronics industry; therefore, we oppose bestowing cash subsidies,
cut-rate government loans, loan guarantees or other assistance, on the
electronics industry to develop high definition television. We also
oppose the imposition of technical standards on the high-definition
television industry by the government. Any such standards should
instead evolve from marketplace experience.

We oppose subsidies to military industries even when they are
attempting to convert to civilian activities. Such subsidies prolong
dependence on government funds and divert companies from seeking to
discover what consumers (rather than politicians) want. We likewise
oppose subsidies to communities adjacent to military bases that the
U.S. Department of Defense has closed down, and we oppose their
transformation into Project Areas under California Redevelopment laws.
Only complete privatization of the sites can provide a sound and
enduring basis for restoring economic prosperity to such communities.


We advocate the repeal of all licensing laws, whether for the purpose
of raising revenue or for the purpose of controlling any profession,
trade, or activity. No individual should be legally penalized for not
possessing certification. No consumer should be legally restrained
from hiring non-certified individuals.

Certification of competency can best, and should only, be provided by
the free market. Examples of free market certification would be
adherence to voluntary professional standards, or bonding by those
organizations or individuals who would accept financial responsibility
for the actions of the bonded party. In their own best interest,
indemnitors would determine the competence of a particular
professional before certification, bonding or insuring against


We advocate the use of private civil litigation, as opposed to
regulation by government agencies, to combat product mislabeling,
misrepresentation, and default of contract. The right to produce and
purchase products and services must not be restricted by law.

Regulations intended to protect consumers have often had the opposite
effect, since government rarely knows as much about consumers' needs
as they do. So-called consumer protection laws are often used by
established businesses to stifle innovative rivals. In addition, such
laws have caused considerable harm by lulling consumers into assuming
that government would protect them from bad products and services. In
the free market, consumers would be protected because:

A. A good name is an asset to a business and it can best be
maintained by fair and honest dealing.

B. The use of certificates, guarantees, and warranties issued by
manufacturers and suppliers of goods and services is a protection
to the consumer.

C. Both professional and non-professional people can voluntarily
form associations for the specific purpose of maintaining high
standards both in work and behavior.

D. Privately-owned consumer protection organizations producing
journals and magazines would proliferate in a free market.

We therefore endorse and advocate the following:

A. The elimination of all government consumer affairs bureaus or

B. The repeal of all laws regulating the production,
transportation, sale, possession, advertising, quality, safety, or
use of any product or service.


As we support the right of all individuals to enter into contracts, so
we oppose all government interference in employer-employee
relationships. Therefore, we oppose government-mandated "right of
access" to private property for purposes of union organizing,
government-sponsored elections on establishing unions, and
government-defined collective bargaining units. We support an
employer's and labor union's unrestricted right to exercise freedom of
speech, consistent with private property rights, during a labor
organizing campaign.

We support the right of persons to voluntarily establish, associate
with, or not associate with labor unions. An employer has the right to
recognize, or refuse to recognize a union as the collective bargaining
agent of some or all employees. Therefore, we oppose "right to work"
laws because they prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts
with unions. Likewise, unions have the right to organize secondary
boycotts, if in so doing they do not violate individual rights or
existing contractual agreements. We do not countenance individuals or
associations, whether management or labor, making efforts to coerce
collective bargaining agreements.

We oppose government interference in contract negotiations, such as
compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to negotiate. We call
for the repeal of all government laws and regulations interfering with
employer-employee relationships such as the wage and hour laws, the
Wagner Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, the California Occupational Safety
and Health Act, and the California Farm Labor Act.

We favor replacement of the current workers compensation system with a
system of strict liability of employers for on-the-job physical
injuries -- a liability that can be modified or waived in contractual

We repudiate the notion that the government should decree wages in
accordance with its arbitrary political notions of comparable worth,
and oppose all laws based on this concept.


We support the right of private citizens and organizations to
rightfully acquire natural resources for the purpose of conservation.
However the desire to conserve natural resources is not a valid excuse
for the violation of individual rights, and we therefore oppose such

We oppose government-mandated conservation. Conservation should be the
choice of the owners of private property. We therefore advocate:

A. That methods be devised for the transference to private
ownership of all currently unowned and government-held property,
including waterways and airspace.

B. That conservationists buy areas or resources they wish to

C. The repeal of laws mandating the recycling of waste products and
laws offering government loans to finance recycling plants.

D. That laws providing for governmental protection of endangered
species be repealed, allowing private wildlife groups and private
conservancy funds to assume responsibility for such efforts.

E. That all conservation laws controlling or regulating the use,
development, sale, or production of resources -- e.g., land,
minerals and woodlands -- be repealed.

F. That private deed restrictions be the method of choice to
conserve natural resources for future generations.


The history of government water projects in the State of California
has been one of increased taxes to finance dams, canals, and
pipelines. The state government has supplied subsidized water to
growers who in turn produce federally subsidized crops, especially
rice and cotton. Government-run water rationing has channeled water to
political favorites and burdened the public with arbitrary cutbacks.
Government-aided insurance programs have subsidized those living or
doing business in flood-prone areas, and created regional antagonism
between beneficiaries and victims of water policy.

We advocate basing water rights on principles of appropriation and

We also advocate the transfer of all water works to private ownership.
We oppose the tax financing and eminent domain land acquisitions for
all projects and facilities in the state water plan, including the
Peripheral Canal. We favor repeal of all government drought and flood
emergency powers and all government ability to impose water rationing.
We propose elimination of all government flood insurance programs. We
favor an end to all government weather-modification programs, and we
favor holding private weather-modifying firms liable for damages they
may cause. We call for the elimination of the current doctrine of "use
it or lose it" that automatically transfers unused privately-owned
water to governments or other claimants. Under the current doctrine of
prior appropriation, recreational use is not considered a beneficial
use. We hold that owners of land adjacent to bodies of water should be
able to establish riparian property rights through "first regular use"
of the water for recreational purposes.


California's farmers, the people who feed much of America and the
world, have been plowed under by government intervention. Federal
government subsidies to producers, state and federal regulation, and
state and federal taxes have distorted the market in the agricultural
business. Federal government export policies hold California's farmers
hostage to the political whims of both Republican and Democratic
administrations. Federal government embargoes on grain sales and other
obstacles to free trade have frustrated the development of free and
stable trade relationships between California farmers and peoples
elsewhere in the world.

The agricultural problems facing Californians today are not insoluble,
however. Government policies can and must be reversed. Farmers and
consumers alike should be free from the meddling and
counter-productive measures of the state and federal governments --
free to grow, sell, and buy what they want, in the quantity they want,
when they want. Five steps can be taken immediately at the state

A. Abolition of the state Department of Agriculture;

B. Repeal of all state marketing orders so that producers may
voluntarily establish their own promotion programs;

C. Repeal of all state programs that promote exports and subsidize
the marketing of exports;

D. Privatization of agricultural research and the ending of
agricultural research programs of state colleges and universities
and state agencies; and

E. Ending of governmental involvement in agricultural pest control.
A policy of pest control should be implemented whereby private
individuals or corporations bear full responsibility for damages
they inflict on their neighbors.


Pollution of air, water and land violates the rights of individuals to
their lives and property. Physical harm to health or property by
pollution is as real as harm due to assault or theft, and must be
dealt with through objective legal procedures. In order to handle the
problems of air, water, soil, radiation, and noise pollution, we call
for an extension of the laws governing such torts as trespass and
nuisance to cover persons who cause substantial damage by intruding on
the persons or property of others. Current government measures
concerned with pollution often bypass court proceedings, without
concern for restitution to the victims of pollution or the rights of
the accused. Governments, being major contributors to pollution, must
be held legally responsible for their waste products.

We oppose all anti-litter tax laws and all mandatory bottle-deposit

We call for the repeal of the Clean Air Act and call for the abolition
of the federal and state Environmental Protection Agencies and the
return, to the jurisdiction of the courts, of all questions of
violations of the rights to life and property.

We support holding property owners fully liable for damages done by
their toxic waste. We oppose the creation of governmental funds,
backed by the taxing power, to finance toxic waste clean-up.


Energy shortages are caused by government interference with the
interaction of supply and demand, such as setting artificially low
prices for fuels. Such policies have discouraged production and
encouraged waste. These policies must be ended.

We support:

A. The creation of a free market in oil by instituting full
property rights in underground oil and by the repeal of all
government controls over output in the petroleum industry. We
support the right of persons to build, own, or use refineries,
pipelines, power-generation units, or any other unproductive asset,
so long as they do not violate the rights of others. We support
abolition of the Department of Energy and the abolition of its
component agencies, without the transfer of their powers elsewhere
in the government.

B. The right of sellers and buyers to trade voluntarily among
themselves without government restrictions.

C. The repeal of the federal Price-Anderson Act, which limits the
accident liability of nuclear plant owners.

D. Subjecting the utility industry to free competition without
grants of monopoly or price regulation.

E. A free market of natural gas pricing.

F. Privatizing all government-owned energy assets such as the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the power marketing agencies, and
mineral bearing on-shore and off-shore lands.

We oppose:

A. The refusal of government agencies to permit the development of
energy sources located on government-held land.

B. Government-imposed rationing of energy products.

C. Speed limits imposed for the purpose of conserving fuel,
government fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles and any
government requirements that manufacturers build and sell "zero
emissions" motor vehicles or ones that run on fuels other than
gasoline, such as methanol and ethanol.

D. Implementation by California of federal programs for coercive
control of energy production or use.

E. State requirements that methanol be used in electrical
generation plants.

F. Restriction by the State of California of drilling for
production and/or transportation of petroleum products.

G. Any taxes on energy producers.

H. Mandatory conversion from any energy source to any other source
of energy.

I. Mandatory weatherization, insulation, and energy-oriented
building and architectural codes.

J. The "strategic storage" program, any attempt to compel national
self-sufficiency in oil, an extension of cargo preference law to
imports, and any attempt to raise oil tariffs or impose oil import
quotas. We oppose subsidies for alternative energy technologies,
such as co-generation, small hydroelectric facilities, synthetic
fuel production, wind power, solar power, and geothermal power. All
forms of energy should be free to compete on the market without
subsidies or artificial props or impediments.


Government-operated or supported monopolies abridge individual rights
to free trade and should be abolished. We call for the repeal of all
laws which establish or support monopolies. Specifically, we call for
privatization of water supply, garbage collection, transit systems,
and telecommunications. Further, we support the right of any person or
group to conduct a lottery.

We call for repeal of any law which prohibits competition with
government monopolies. Therefore, we condemn the government-enforced
monopolistic practices of the medical, legal, and other trade and
professional associations.


We call for complete deregulation of the insurance industry, including
abolition of the Department of Insurance and the office of Insurance
Commissioner. Government has no right to set or approve insurance
rates, force insurance companies to write any particular lines of
insurance, or regulate who may sell insurance or found an insurance

We oppose government-mandated insurance, including automobile
liability insurance. Failure to obtain insurance, however, does not
relieve drivers from responsibility to pay restitution to the victims
of their actions. We oppose no-fault insurance laws, which represent
an attempt to relieve people of responsibility for their own actions.

We oppose regulations that would force insurance companies to adopt
"community rating" and raise prices for low-risk customers in order to
artificially subsidize high-risk customers.

We advocate the freedom of all individuals to engage in voluntary
informed consent agreements which do not violate the rights of third
parties. We therefore oppose any government imposed standards which
require or restrict the right of insurance companies or employers who
contract them to use genetic or other screening and/or testing

We also oppose state unemployment insurance, workers' compensation
insurance, and state disability insurance, which are hidden taxes and
grossly inequitable. If these benefits are part of an employment
agreement, they must be voluntary between employer and employee, and
be purchased through the free market.


Our silence about any other particular law, regulation, ordinance,
directive, edict, control, agency, activity, condition, or machination
of government should not be construed to imply our approval of such.
Nor does our advocacy of the right to perform certain activities imply
an endorsement of the activities themselves.

Candidate Page || Feedback to Candidate || This Contest
November 2000 Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter

ca/state Created from information supplied by the candidate: September 20, 2000 16:05
Smart Voter 2000 <>
Copyright © 2000 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.