Commuter Rail Referendum

The County Board seems headed in the right direction regarding commuter rail. The referendum question proposed by the Board exposes the prime problem of consideration regarding commuter rail: how is it to be funded?

I took a libertarian argument to the board to hold the referendum. Here it is:

My comments tonight are in regard to the proposed advisory referendum and tradition.

We are all familiar with the words, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This is a statement of what is Tradition here in the United States. I don’t think there is a person in this room tonight that does not understand the importance and value of this tradition. It is part of all of us who live in these united States.

From this very same document is stated another tradition almost as important as the first one: “That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

And that, dear members of this board, is your basic purpose as County Supervisors. To secure those rights.

It is not to laud over us, telling us what is the best thing for us to do. It is not to tell us how to live our lives, how to care for ourselves, how to care for our property, how we should travel, eat, sleep or drink.

In pursuit of your traditional purpose, to secure those rights, if there is an issue of great controversy, then it is your duty to consult the people from whence your powers were derived. And what better way to do this than by referendum.

I am not a great proponent of majority rule. When 51% of the people can tell the other 49% what to do, that is not Democracy. It is just a form of fascism.

But when just an elite few make the decision for the rest of us, that is worse. That is socialism.

In a True Democracy, a traditional democracy, someone cannot take from another person to give to a third person. I, for instance, cannot forcibly take money from Jim Kaplan (here), my County Supervisor, and give it to my friend County Supervisor Ken Hall—even when Ken and I say it is in Jim’s best interest to give us that money.

In a traditional democracy, Jim has the right to spend his money the way he sees fit without interference from Ken and me.

So this whole concept of taking money from one group that has no interest in investing an a rail system to give to another group that does, is anathema to democracy and the traditional role of government to secure our rights.

In pursuit of that traditional role of government, the least you can do is consult your constituency and hold a referendum on the issue.