(Steve Kubby no longer met ProCon.org's eligibility criteriafor inclusion on this site on Mar. 21, 2008. ProCon.org stopped updating his profile as of that date.)
Steve Kubby
Libertarian Presidential Candidate Founder and Director, American Medical Marijuana Association
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The question is based on false premises. In the federalist system set down in the US Constitution, the federal government is given very limited powers, and regulating abortion or any other medical procedure is not one of those powers. There's simply no federal mandate there. On a personal level, my preference is for abortion to be safe, legal and rare -- but as a presidential candidate, my policy position is that that's a matter for the states to hash out without federal interference."
Pro: "From a medical standpoint, abortion is normally a non-emergency, elective procedure. I know of no other non-emergency, elective medical procedure in which it is considered controversial to ascribe authority -- and responsibility -- to parents when the patient is a minor. Schools won't dispense aspirin to students without parental consent. A teenager can't get an ear pierced unless mom or dad signs off. No medical doctor who wanted to remain licensed would perform liposuction or non-emergency heart surgery on a minor before getting parental consent. Children's parents make these decisions for them. That's how it works, and I don't see why abortion should be an exception.
That said, I think that we do need to reconsider the very definition of 'minor.' The laws vary from state to state, but in general you can drive at 16, vote and get drafted at 18, but you can't drink until you're 21. There's no sensible argument for this -- it's like we pulled numbers out of a hat or something. Instead of assigning arbitrary ages for the exercise of adult prerogatives, we should recognize people as adults when they assume responsibility for their lives. This might be a formal process (such a process already exists, and courts already 'emancipate' teens from their parents occasionally), or it might be informal but contestible (there's a procedure in place for contesting it as well -- see Britney Spears' situation for a recent and well-known example)."
Con: "No, it isn't. Without trust, competence is irrelevant. A cat burglar may be competent, but that doesn't mean you want to trust him with the combination to your safe.
In 2000, George W. Bush ran on promises of 'a more humble foreign policy' and 'fiscal responsibility.' I suppose it's possible that he's competent enough to have kept those promises had he chosen to. But he chose not to.
Today we're looking back on the longest sustained period of US military adventurism since Vietnam -- and that adventurism has been fueled by factual claims which range from recklessly negligent to intentionally dishonest.
Today we're looking back on an increase in the US government's debt from $5.6 trillion in fiscal year 2000 to more than $9 trillion today. That debt has been growing at the rate of nearly a billion and a half dollars a DAY since 2006.
Again I say: Does it matter how competent the guy is if you can't trust him? Recent history says no."
Pro: "Yes, China is a threat to the US. They're quickly becoming an economic superpower, and they're investing the fruits of their turn toward economic freedom to expand their army, build a blue-water navy, and embark upon their own space program. They have nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver those weapons to distant targets. And politically, they remain a Communist dictatorship.
The question isn't whether or not China is a threat, but what we should do about it.
A new Cold War is not the answer. Sabre-rattling on our part would unify the Chinese people with their rulers against an external threat and give those rulers cover to more effectively crack down on the pro-freedom dissidents who are slowly but surely leading China out of its dark age.
China is the real test of whether or not free trade and friendly relations between a democracy and a dictatorship can bring down that dictatorship peacefully. The Communist Party is betting that it can liberalize economically while still maintaining an iron grip on political power. They seem to be losing that bet, and OUR best bet is to let them KEEP doubling down and KEEP losing."
Con: "No. The best incentive for improving respect for human rights in China comes from an upwardly mobile Chinese populace. A starving slave may lash out, but the people who come together in an organized fashion to achieve real change are those who have tasted freedom and comparative wealth and want MORE of both. Look at America's civil rights movement. It didn't gain its traction during the Great Depression. It took off in the post-war boom period.
When we trade with China, we help ourselves -- and we help the Chinese people. They get food in their stomachs. They get money in the bank. They get leisure time from what used to be a hand-to-mouth existence. They finally have something to lose -- and the means to fight to keep it."
Con: "Absolutely not. The US embargo has been a key factor in keeping the Communist regime in power in Cuba for decades. It has enabled Fidel Castro to imprison the Cuban in poverty and oppression, positioning America as the mutual enemy of both the regime and the people, and ultimately as the cause of all their problems. History has proven time and time again that economic sanctions strengthen dictatorships and slow progress toward freedom. US policy toward Cuba should consist of free trade in goods and services, as well as open arms to immigrants fleeing tyranny."
Con: "As a presidential candidate, my purview is twofold. It encompasses the death penalty for federal crimes, as well as the issue of ensuring that due process of law prevails in the states. I oppose capital punishment and would work to abolish the death penalty for federal crimes. Given the recent revelations of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases at the state level, I would also direct the Attorney General and the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department to monitor due process issues and intervene where necessary to ensure that criminal defendants receive the full protections due them under the Constitution."
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "That depends on what you mean by 'outsourcing.'
To the extent that Americans are well-educated and in a position to take risks, it's great for them to be able to move into advanced, innovative sectors of the job market, and let jobs which require less skill and education go to places where workers will do them -- and deliver the fruits of them -- more cheaply. We pay less for the things we buy, they bring up their own standards of living and buy more things from us. Capital flows to where it produces the greatest return ... and when that happens, everyone wins.
On the other hand, to the extent that 'outsourcing' is caused by confiscatory taxation and burdensome over-regulation, it just means that our government is depriving Americans of jobs they'd be glad to have. It's a distortion in the market, making offshore labor artificially more attractive."
Con: "No. Free trade is free trade -- and free trade by its very nature enhances workers' abilities to protect their OWN rights far better than any government edict ever could. Free trade makes workers more prosperous and opens up new opportunities to them, giving them ever-increasing leverage with their employers, both as individuals and as members of labor groups. One need only look at the decline of American unions to see what government involvement does to labor solidarity. A union that can't survive and serve its members without government pulling strings for it was never a real union in the first place."
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The stated intent of NAFTA -- to open the borders of the US, Mexico and Canada to a free flow of goods and services -- is good, but that could be accomplished with a one-sentence proclamation from each of the three governments: 'All restrictions, tariffs and excises on the movement of goods and services exchanged over the borders of the US, Mexico and Canada are hereby repealed.' Everything else in NAFTA is negative. It's a big stack of exceptions, set-asides and bureaucratic distortions with a fake 'free trade' stamp on it, and figuring out how the benefits and disadvantages balance against each other is a tangled web of special interests and loopholes."
Con: "No. Government involvement in education -- and particularly federal government involvement in education -- doesn't work. The federal government provides a small percentage of overall education funding in America, but NCLB [No Child Left Behind] imposes uniform standards and central planning on thousands of schools and millions of students in very diverse places and situations. No two communities are the same. No two STUDENTS are the same. How can we expect a bureaucrat in Washington, DC to know what all those communities and all those students need from their schools?"
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "It's kind of a vicious cycle -- government subsidies increase demand, and the increased demand leads to increased prices. Keep in mind that even students who pay 'full tuition' at a state university are usually only paying about 1/3 of what that university spends per credit hour. The rest is direct state funding. Then government steps in to subsidize the tuition payments themselves with grants or loan guarantees. Everyone wants to go to college, and everyone else is paying for it -- a great way to inflate prices."
Con: "No. Political campaigns are an exercise of free speech, with a candidate or organization speaking on behalf of supporters. Restricting how much those supporters can contribute is essentially restricting the volume of their speech."
Pro: "Absolutely. There are enough questionable aspects to our election system as is -- bars to ballot access for third party and independent candidates, abysmal turnout which we usually interpret as apathy but which could just as easily be disgust with the system, etc. The least we can do is insist that the votes that ARE cast be accurately and verifiably tabulated."
Con: "If by 'publicly financed' you mean 'financed with taxpayer money distributed by the government,' then no. The notion that I should be forced to pay for John McCain's presidential campaign, or that John McCain should be forced to contribute to Barack Obama's campaign, or that Barack Obama should have to write a check to my campaign is obscene. Americans should be free to support the candidates they like, and to not support the candidates they don't like."
Con: "No. As the situation exists, that really amounts to nothing but corporate welfare. Congress sells 'drilling rights,' then spends more in taxpayer money building roads and infrastructure than it got for the oil, then lets the oil companies put us over the barrel (pun intended) for the final product.
Personally, I'd like to see the national parks in private hands, but on an honest basis, not as a giveaway to Big Oil. I suspect that the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club could raise money to put quite a bit of that land in permanent trust for the uses they prefer if the oil companies didn't own Congress."
Con: "No. If we're going to have a strategic oil reserve, it should be used for its intended purpose (ensuring that our armed forces don't run out of gas in a war situation). Tapping it every time prices go up is just a way of distorting the market for political purposes -- hiding the real cost of oil so that our politicians can avoid dealing with the consequences of their policies."
Con: "No. In the past, such protocols and agreements have primarily been instruments for transferring American wealth to third world countries, and for placing the burden of environmental protection largely on America's shoulders. America should work unilaterally to reduce its own carbon emissions without allowing itself to become entangled in the separate agendas of other governments. America was the engine of the Industrial Revolution which, although it created the pollution problems we face now, also vastly improved the standard of living worldwide. Freedom and the market will allow us to be the engine of the NEXT industrial revolution -- the revolution in which we once again make quantum leaps in the improvement the quality of human life while addressing the problem of pollution, and in which we once again deliver those solutions to a waiting world."
Con: "No. The future of fuel efficiency is in innovation, not in bureaucratic edicts. Mandatory standards tend in practice to become the routine rather than the minimum. Companies play it safe to meet that minimum, rather than taking risks and shooting for much greater gains. CAFE standards also tend to concentrate the auto industry on marginally improving old technologies instead of pioneering new, better technologies."
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Most scientists believe that humans are responsible for some portion of the factors driving global climate change. Many scientists disagree on whether or not that portion is 'substantial.' As it happens, though, the policies we need to follow for other reasons -- reasons like reducing our dependence on finite distant energy sources in hostile lands, and reducing pollution which threatens human health -- are the same policies we would need to follow to reduce whatever our actual climate impact is. We need to stop subsidizing the petroleum industry and hiding the true cost of its products. We need to let alternative energy sources compete on a playing field that isn't controlled, through government, by Big Oil."
Con: "No. In fact, quite the opposite. The Second Amendment is clear -- 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' This is not a murky issue. The 20,000+ US 'gun control' laws are not only blatantly unconstitution, but have proven themselves utterly ineffective in reducing violent crime. It's time to repeal them."
Con: "The question isn't 'should,' it's 'do.' A right is something to which one is entitled, and it exists independently of any government statement or policy saying it does ... and no, there can't be a 'right' to something that someone else has to provide. A 'right' to healthcare amounts, in essence, to conscription of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel. I oppose the draft for any purpose."
Pro: "Americans should be allowed to purchase their drugs from other countries -- but they shouldn't need a prescription to purchase their drugs in the first place."
Pro: "Absolutely. Several sectors of our economy -- plant agriculture in California, poultry processing in the midwest, homebuilding in many parts of the country -- would virtually collapse overnight without immigrant labor, and legal immigration quotas don't come close to filling the demand.
US unemployment has hovered in the 5% range for years now. Economists consider 5% unemployment to be effectively 'full employment,' because that 5% represents mostly people who are either between jobs or who aren't looking for a job. America NEEDS workers, and the labor supply is tight enough that without a continuous injection of immigrant labor, Americans would be paying much higher prices for their food, homebuilding and home repair, etc.
Furthermore, illegal immigrants pay all kinds of taxes and consume relatively few government-funded 'social services.' They pay in income taxes under false names, and don't file for refunds. They pay Social Security taxes and never collect benefits. They avoid most government 'benefits' for fear of being detected and deported. They subsidize the welfare state that middle class Americans take for granted -- and then endure the false claims that they're the ones draining the budgets of those programs!"
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Rights aren't something you 'receive.' They're something you possess by virtue of the fact that you're a human being. The proper question is whether or not illegal aliens are entitled to have their natural, inalienable human rights RESPECTED -- and the only acceptable answer to that is 'of course they are.'
'Benefits' are even trickier. If you're referring to the web of welfare 'entitlements,' no, illegal aliens shouldn't receive them ... and neither should anyone else.
The best answer to the whole situation is to allow peaceful people to come to America to work without restriction, and to end the welfare state that sets up these stupid jealousies in the first place."
Con: "Not the kind of fence that's being built now! Peaceful people should be free to move across borders to visit, to live, to seek work. The fence we're building now is designed to stop them from doing so, and that's dangerous to America, both economically and in terms of national security. Once we've repealed our nonsensical restrictions on immigration so that peaceful people can walk in through the 'front door' without any hassles or penalties, then a fence might make sense as a countermeasure against hostile parties like terrorists. Right now, it's just offensive, un-American foolishness."
Con: "No. First of all, while the International Atomic Energy Agency has found some problems with Iran's nuclear program, it has yet to find any evidence to support the Bush administration's charges that Iran is in any way operating outside the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NNPT] to which both are signatory.
Secondly, it is not Washington's place to dictate the conduct of Iran's internal affairs. Even if the Iranians develop a nuclear weapon -- which they are apparently some years from doing if that is their goal -- they've demonstrated neither the ability nor the desire to use such weapons against the United States. Until and unless they credibly threaten to do so, the US has no more business dictating nuclear arms policy to Iran than Iran would have dictating nuclear arms policy to the US -- which has a questionable record on NNPT compliance itself, and which thus far remains the only nation to attack another with an atomic or nuclear weapon.
Thirdly, the path to a peaceful future dictates that the US seek friendly relations with Iran rather than continue to rattle sabres. Thirty years of sanctions against Iran have achieved nothing positive and indeed have helped entrench the radical Islamist regime in Tehran and undermined a strong popular sentiment for liberalization. The thing the mullahs fear most is a friendly United States. It is a hostile United States which substantially keeps them in power."
Pro: "The foreign policy issue foremost in most Americans' minds is, of course, the war on Iraq. I oppose it. I opposed it when it was proposed, I opposed it when it began, and I oppose it now...
The war on Iraq was a massive screwup. Continuing to screw up will not unscrew it."
"Foreign Policy and Iraq," Steve Kubby's official candidate website (accessed Feb. 1, 2008)
Pro: "If by 'timetable for withdrawal' you mean 'immediate, unconditional withdrawal as fast as can be accomplished consistent with the safety and security of the troops,' then yes. If by 'timetable for withdrawal' you mean some vague set of ill-defined goals drawn up to ensure a perpetual US military presence in Iraq, then no."
Con: "No. Israel claims to be a sovereign nation, and as such should take responsibility for its own defense and economic situation. The same goes for every other foreign government receiving US aid."
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The decision as to whom should be allowed to join Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is a decision for the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach for themselves."
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I believe that the Palestinian Arabs should determine their own destiny. I'd like to see them do so in a way that puts them in peaceful co-existence with the Israeli people. Whether that means an independent state or not isn't our decision to make -- it's theirs. The object of US foreign policy should be 'friendship and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none.' We need to butt out of the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Con: "Absolutely not. If the government is going to license marriages at all, it should do so without discrimination on the basis of gender. Better yet, get government out of that business entirely and let marriages be constructed as religious ceremonies and/or freely negotiated contracts like any other."
Con: "I can't blame voters for taking such things into account when deciding whether or not a candidate is trustworthy, but disqualify? No. It's just one thing to take into account. If everyone who had ever made a mistake was disqualified from office, we'd have no government at all. Hey, maybe you're onto something there..."
Pro: "Yes. As a matter of fact, the federal government should -- and, if I'm elected, will -- stop arresting people for using marijuana anywhere, for any purpose."
Con: "Under no circumstances will I ever support conscription. Not only is it unconstitutional -- the 13th Amendment clearly forbids involuntary servitude -- but it's wrong and it's stupid.
America has never lacked for defenders when it came under attack, nor has it lacked volunteers in time of piece to DETER attack. If a politician starts talking about conscription, then he's almost certainly contemplating a non-defensive war and a war which few Americans would find worthy of support. A nation which has to draft its young men and women has obviously picked the wrong fight to put them in, and no government which considers the draft a legitimate policy is worthy of the loyalty of those whom it presumes to enslave."
Pro: "Gay people should be allowed to serve in the US military, marry their partners, and otherwise enjoy full equality under the law. Whether or not they are 'openly' gay is irrelevant -- whether or not anyone publicly declares his or her sexual orientation is a personal decision. I advocate repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' and its replacement with 'don't ask, who cares?'"
Con: "No. The line item veto isn't a silver bullet -- it's a substitute for taking responsibility and putting a stop to the nonsense. If Congress is unwilling or unable to discipline itself, I'll happily veto every bill that comes to my desk encrusted with pork earmarks, poison pills and other gimmicks. Presidents have plenty of power already. What they lack is political courage."
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Only tangentially. What's important is that a candidate be able to justify his policy proposals on grounds other than his religious beliefs. 'Separation of Church and State' does not dictate that politicians must have no religious convictions. It merely dictates that their political proposals be based on sound public policy grounds rather than on the highly debatable claim that 'God says so.' As you've probably noticed, most people seem to hear God saying whatever it is that they wanted him (or her, or them!) to say. In America, our framework of governance is dictated by the Constitution, not the Bible, the Q'uran or the Tao Te Ching. As president, I would be sworn to accept that framework, to offer policy proposals that fit within that framework, and to justify those proposals to my fellow Americans based on objective facts, not on my religious beliefs. And I would rigorously adhere to that oath."
Pro: "Yes. Unfortunately, we are running out of time. Our politicians have been avoiding the 'third rail' of Social Security reform for so long that it is fast approaching a point of catastrophic collapse. I cannot claim to have all the answers, but my commitment is to get America's younger workers off this runaway train, allow them to make their own retirement investment decisions, and try to phase out Social Security in the manner that least injures those who have been trapped in a failed system for their whole working lives."
Con: "No -- and, let's be honest, this is a tempest in a teapot. Privately funded embryonic stem cell research dwarfs government research funding, and that's a good thing. The government funding angle has been preserved by feuding interest groups as a political football. Pro-life advocates want an issue to rally their constituents around. Advocates of socialized medicine and science draw a line in the sand against any reduction of government funding for anything. Yes, there are real ethical questions involved, but we don't have to reach this issue with those questions. Government does not need to be in the business of handing out taxpayer money for scientific research -- especially scientific research which the private sector is already much more heavily, and much more effectively, invested in."
Pro: "Yes -- and then some! Those tax cuts were miniscule, and their effects were immediately erased with inflationary deficit spending. Their only real lasting legacy is to serve as proof positive that the Republican Party isn't serious about cutting taxes. You want serious? As president, I'll ask Congress to balance the budget AND repeal the income tax. If they refuse, I'll insist on a balanced budget and on real, regular, significant tax cuts in the form of a standard annual increase to the personal exemption. And I'll wear my veto pen out enforcing that."
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "That's between Turkey and those other countries. The primary considerations are getting US troops out of the line of fire in that region and getting the US disentangled from those arguments entirely."
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The only update I can think of which is called for is acknowledging and enforcing the Bill of Rights instead of allowing it to wither as we've been doing for a century or more now."
Con: "Absolutely not. What someone 'considers' torture is irrelevant. The term is rigourously defined in numerous statutes and treaties, and 'waterboarding' is clearly a violation of both US and international law. The US was a leading advocate of prosecuting Japanese military personnel who used 'waterboarding' on American POWs [prisoners of war] for war crimes after World War II. Beyond the legal issues are the moral issues. It's seldom that I agree with a Republican or Democratic politician, but I am with former prisoner of war John McCain on this one: We are America, and America does not torture. Period."
Pro: "Yes. The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are either prisoners of war, or they're accused criminals. If they're POWs [prisoners of war], they're entitled to a higher standard of treatment than they're receiving. If they're accused criminals, they're entitled to access to the courts and to the same constitutional protections as any other criminal defendants."
Founder and Director, American Medical Marijuana Association
Personal Information:
Full Name: Steve W. Kubby
Marital Status: Divorced
Birthdate: Dec. 28, 1946
Children: Three
Birthplace: El Paso, TX
Religion: Taoist
Involvement:
National Director and Founder, American Medical Marijuana Association, 1998-present
Medical marijuana patient, consultant, and expert witness
34 year cancer patient
Produced and Directed "Pot TV News," 2002-2005
Arrested and charged with possession of 265 marijuana plants and 14 related felonies; found by a jury to be innocent of all marijuana charges, sentenced to 120 days in jail; lived in Canada, fought return to the U.S. on the advice of his attorneys, returned to U.S. and completed all pending legal obligations (served sentence in 2006, released early from jail for good behavior), 1999-2006
Contender to be the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential candidate, 2000
Cowrote, California's medical marijuana "Compassionate Use Act of 1996" (Prop. 215), 1995-1996
Education:
Lifetime Teaching Credential, Public Administration, Shasta College, 1972
BA, Psychology, California State University, Northridge, 1968
Affiliations and Memberships:
Member, Libertarian Party
Member, Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board
Publisher and Founder, Ski West magazine, 1986-1991
Received two days of pilot training as a civilian journalist, Naval Air Station, Fallon, NV, 1990
Property Manager, Lake Tahoe, 1981-1986
Founder and Director, Earth Camp One Summer Camp, Mt. Shasta, CA, 1971-1981
Probation Officer, Los Angeles County, 1969-1971
Director, Underwater Operations and Training, Scientology Flag Ship, reported directly to L. Ron Hubbard, Europe and North Africa, 1968-1969
Taught courses, Shasta Junior College
Other:
Announced candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination for President in 2008, Aug. 20, 2006
Select Publications:
Cowitten with Ed Rosenthal, Why Marijuana Should be Legal, 1996
The Politics of Consciousness: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom, 1995