Dan Robin

Ballot Access

The Civil Rights Issue of our Day.

Voting is speech. Voting is a fundamental individual right. But probably most importantly, voting is an expressive outlet for your opinions and feelings. Governmental limitations on ballot access grossly distort the substance and texture of what voters have to say. My analysis takes this an important step further. We, the people, have the right to hear the full range of voter opinions. Maybe an extreme example proves my point: In 2002 Saddam Hussain got 100% of the vote because he was the only candidate on the ballot. We, the people, learn nothing and hear nothing from voting without options. All voting laws, both federal and state must comply with the 1st Amendment right to the freedom of speech. No government has the right to limit expression because of its substance. If the state attempts to limit speech, such as preventing ballot access or Gerrymandering, the state must carry the burden of proving that its regulation is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling state interest i.e. it must pass strict scrutiny.

Current restrictions on ballot access and Gerrymandering are both unfair and unconstitutional. They would fail strict scrutiny. The following policy recommendations are the least restrictive of our fundamental right to express ourselves through voting.

(1) Universal Ballot Access. Every person who seeks public office should be allowed on the ballot. The only interest the government could possibly claim as compelling is to prevent voter chaos, i.e. 50-100 candidates running for a single office. Such an eventuality could justify signatures of say .1% of those who voted in a prior election.

(2) Ranked Choice Voting. This voting system gives voters the right to rank their preference among the candidates. If there are 3 candidates, each voter could vote for his or her 1st, 2nd and 3rdchoice. If no candidate receives a majority, the last place candidate is dropped. Then a recount is conducted using the 2nd choice vote of the dropped party and so on until someone receives a majority. This allows the government to express its preference for majority rule without limiting ballot access.

(3) Cumulative Voting. Cumulative voting ends the need for districts to elect multiple representatives, i.e. it would end all Gerrymandering. If there are 7 representatives for a given state, every voter could vote for 7 different people or vote 7 times for a single person. Those who receive the most votes would be elected. We don’t need the chaos created by the formation of deep sea creature-like districts every 10 years.

Let’s make voting meaningful again.

COVID POLICIES

Heroes in tough times

I am triple vaccinated. I understand a 4th one may be on its way. I’ll take it as soon as it is available. But this isn’t about me. It is about heroes. People, standing on the shoulders of giants, developed our vaccines within 48 hours after receiving the genetic codes. I also understand that they now have an antiviral pill called Paxlovid that helps prevent serious illness and death. Saying thanks to those winners is not enough. I want to tip my hat to those who tried and failed. They probably lost lots of money and their stock tanked to boot. But they did all that to help you and me. I am guessing that they would do it all over again if the opportunity arose. Three cheers to those who “gave it a go.”

Covid has been a libertarian moment! Of course lockdowns and mandates would say otherwise but telehealth is everywhere. The court systems have learned how to use Zoom. There is something very libertarianish about “work from home.” Most localities now approve outdoor dining and “drinks to go.” Lots of parents are thinking through their options about homeschooling, private schools and charter schools. Bottlenecks at the California ports have taught us to focus on trucking rules, storage regulations and anti-technology union contracts.

Every time we see deregulation, a libertarian gets his wings and working folk keep their jobs.

THE WAR ON DRUGS

Drugs are bad; the drug war is worse.

Libertarians are quite famous for opposing the war on drugs. We are beginning to make some progress with pot. I’ll take on the more difficult question: hard drugs.

1) Hard drugs should be handled as a medical issue; not as a criminal matter.

2) Harm reduction works. It is literally illegal in America. Check it out. The Ankors Clinic in British Columbia Canada provides a safe place for drug addicts to have their drugs tested, obtain clean needles, and get overdoes help and treatment if asked. These are true heroes!

3) My Walgreens Principle: Cashiers and customers generally don’t shoot each other. Let Walgreens sell hard drugs. Druggists are smart and friendly. They might turn out to be heroes too.

4) My Advil Principle: The sellers of Advil provide consistency, purity, instructions and disclosure. Selling hard drugs like that would probably cut overdose deaths to zero.

5) Kids living near the front lines of the drug war really see what they think is easy money. School work simply can’t compete. Please, please, please take the profit out of street drugs. Sell them in Walgreens. Kid’s greatest ambitions should be their homework or sports; not a quick buck for the local dealer.

6) Teachers, ministers, social workers and parents are screaming about the evils of drugs. They simply can’t be heard over the din and profits of the drug war.

EDUCATION

Mother and father know best

For education policy I am a big fan of Brian Caplan. (Check out his book: The Case Against Education.) These, however, are my opinions. The role of public education is simple. Teach the basic 3R’s so that every individual can, if he or she chooses, participate in the political process. Anything more constitutes a subsidy. Yes, a subsidy, as in crony capitalism. The public does not benefit very much from teaching the kid down the street how to be a lawyer, accountant, teacher, engineer, etc. Who benefits? ….the kid down the street. Keep it simple: Those who benefit should pay for the service.

Parents know their children best. If you want better parents, put them in charge of picking the type and quality of their children’s education. Public money should follow the parents. Incentivize parents. If their child is book smart, they will find the money in their budget for a good school.

Sure, I hear you, what about the kid growing up in a poor family? Three things. First, don’t underestimate the ambition of poor parents to find a better life for their children or the ambition of the child to escape his or her situation. Secondly, don’t mishmash education policy with poverty policy. If there is one thing we know for certain, government run schools in poor neighborhoods have not helped kids escape poverty. Education savings accounts, tax credit scholarships or vouchers should do the trick. Third, families, churches, friends and neighborhood institutions do great work. They really are the heroes fighting poverty. Why? Because they know us. Some kids just need a little tutoring; some kids are destined for greatness and some kids need to grow up. Let’s start putting our faith in the little platoons.

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Everyone, including migrants, has the right to work

Creating a big beautiful front door for migrants to enter this country is just the right thing to do. Every human being has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To me, that includes the right to support yourself and your family wherever life takes you. In case you forgot, the Statue of Liberty a/k/a the Mother of Exiles bears this inscription:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.
By Emma Lazarus

It doesn’t take an economist to know that the consequences for human flourishing for migrants are enormous. Allowing humans to migrate to where they can increase their productivity would increase worldwide wealth and massively reduce poverty.

I simply don’t understand the fears. Sure, some people that come here will present risks of crime and present economic disruption. Those risks are tiny compared to the joys of freedom and blessings of liberty. Consider that every year we are bombarded with a massive number of barbarians with no language comprehension, no education and no skills: they are called babies.

Like it or not, America is just simply great at assimilating the wonderful cultures of the world. Let’s build and be the Golden Door.

POVERTY

Everything libertarians do should be about poverty

The age old question is, how can we help the poor. There are two major camps:

1) Changing how we slice the pie.
2) Making a bigger pie.

As a libertarian, I clearly fall into the second camp. Exhibit #1 is China and India’s partial legalization of free enterprise. It is impossible to comprehend the meaning of a billion people escaping extreme poverty. That’s about 3 times the population of the United States. Not a crumb, not a sliver, not a dollop of pie was taken from anyone to accomplish this most delicious result. It all happened because of the free market.

I could, but I won’t call for the end of welfare. I’ll come close, but I won’t. I call for the end of what I call “mishmash,” combining two completely different policies into one. Stop designing every public policy as if it answers the question: “How does this policy affect the poor?” There are literally hundreds of programs with a means test or a policy that alters the balance of power between different human beings. Just one example might help. The County of Cook recently implemented a new landlord tenant law. It is a gigantic trap for the unwary landlord. Over and over again it places landlords at risk of a law suit and paying the tenant’s attorney’s fees. If someone asked me where he/she should build an apartment building, my answer would be: “Anywhere but Cook County.” The government created a mishmash. It combined landlord tenant law and poverty policy. I want landlords to build so many buildings that they have to get down on their knees and beg tenants (rich and poor) to rent from them.

TAXES AND SPENDING

Illinois is starving the beast

I hope you like cynicism. For years the Democrats and Republicans have fought over budgets. Remember “starve the beast?” Republicans thought they could reduce the size of government if they cut revenue sources. It didn’t work very well because both sides found ways to spend more. Well, Illinois found a way to make “starve the beast” work. It is just a little backwards. The Illinois Constitution compels keeping the existing pension systems. All our money seemingly go to the pension systems. Between 2000 and 2020 payments to the pension system grew by 501%. Spending on employee health care grew by 127%. During that same time overall spending grew only 15%. Spending on child protection, mental health, state police, college support for low income students and other socially valuable matters DROPPED by almost one-third. Thank-you government employees. You proved that the beast could be starved. We must amend our constitution.

Libertarian incrementalism does exist. If we cut real estate taxes, income taxes, gas taxes, cell phone taxes, corporate taxes and excise taxes by say 50%, I guarantee libertarians won’t be crying about taxes being theft. Obviously we can’t cut taxes without cutting spending. But, cutting taxes just might reverse the outflow of people from Illinois. Our economy might just boom. Texas and Florida have high taxes here or there, but not across the board. The Tax Foundation says that Illinois has the 3rd highest corporate tax, the 5thhighest cell phone tax and the 10th highest local and sales tax. We compete with New Jersey for the absolute highest real estate taxes. People love Illinois; it is a wonderful place to live. But, they don’t love the high cost of living and the high taxes. Sorry, I am not going to say this nicely. Government employees: “IT’S YOU VERSES US.”

POLICE AND VICTIMLESS CRIME

How the police shoud treat their friends and neighbors

If there is no victim, the police should NOT treat the matter as a crime. NO VICTIM, NO CRIME. Being a police officer is one of the most difficult and dangerous jobs in the world. They should focus on the bad guys who hurt someone or take people’s stuff. That is why, as Attorney General, I will ask every police chief and every police officer to use his or her discretion while enforcing the law. If there is no immediate victim, we should not waste our time arresting, prosecuting and punishing our friends and neighbors.

Murder, rape, theft and robbery have occasionally been on the rise in this state. Rarely can police officers be on the scene during such a crime. They depend upon us to assist in their investigation. Helping them should sound easy; it’s not. Criminals can be very scary and dangerous people even if you are the victim. If your total experience with the police is being stopped for speeding, drugs, stop and frisk or some other victimless nonsense, it is hard to see the police as your friend and neighbor. NO VICTIM, NO CRIME means increasing the chances that we work together on the important stuff.^[2]