☆ Opp Now exclusive: Libertarian presidential candidate Chase Oliver tackles BART extension, Prop 5, hot local issues
On his way to Milpitas last week for a meet-and-greet, presidential hopeful Chase Oliver—dubbed by the Rolling Stone as the “most influential Libertarian in America”—chatted with Opp Now's managing editor Lauren Oliver about some of Bay Area voters' biggest issues. The conversation, a special Opp Now exclusive, reads in its entirety below. (Psst: Stick around to the end for Oliver's #1 pick for your Libertarian reading list.)
Opportunity Now: Let's start with an issue Bay Area taxpayers have been dealing with for a long while, and isn't fading away anytime soon: the federal government funding BART's extension project to downtown San Jose.
To provide some background, this controversial extension is already $8.1 billion over budget, 10 years delayed, and is unlikely to hit its ridership goals. What's your take on federal subsidies for regional public transit?
Chase Oliver: As with many things, I find that when the government picks winners and losers and decides to subsidize projects like the BART extension, they routinely go over budget while under-delivering what they're supposed to be providing. Truly, it's indicative of the wasteful nature of the federal government. I tend to oppose projects like that.
In my home city of Atlanta, there's a street car that reminds me of this BART extension project. The street car costs the government a lot, while its ridership rate is low. So I've seen this kind of thing play out in my own backyard—and now in the Bay Area.
ON: Many Silicon Valley residents would agree that government spending—albeit for projects that “serve the public”—is out of control. What do you think about the proposal to lower California's voting threshold for new taxes, via Proposition 5? Currently, we need 66% approval to raise taxes, and Prop 5 wants to drop it to 55%.
CO: The referendum process has gotten a lot of things passed in California that ended up biting citizens in the butt. I think lowering the threshold for tax increases would make it far easier for future tax increases to impact everyone's wallet.
Plus, it doesn't make sense to me to lower the two-thirds majority only for “infrastructure” special taxes. I'd like not to see exemptions made in the referendum process; there shouldn't be a mechanism to lower that 66%, unless it's done across the board.
At the end of the day, I'm not a California voter, so I'm not quite decided. Of course, I'd like people to have a say in their government; but if it's for the purpose of increasing taxes, I'm not sure.
ON: We've talked about finances; let's turn to the situation on our streets. At Opp Now, we hear from folks all over the Valley about safety issues ramping up since 2014's Prop 47, which downgraded many property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. This cycle, we'll be voting on Prop 36, an amendment to reinstate former stricter penalties and allow a court in some cases to mandate offenders get drug treatment.
What's your approach to the issues residents are facing with criminal justice?
CO: Ultimately, any crime that affects someone does require a penalty (and I leave that on a state-by-state basis). However, it's a step in the wrong direction to say, “Oh, crime is an issue, so we need to punish people more.”
I think the most important thing when considering criminal justice is not merely being punitive but instead working to implement restorative justice. I don't know if restoring stiffer penalties will suddenly stop property crimes from occurring. Rather, we should look to addressing the root of these crimes, which is often economic hardship.
Broadly speaking, the criminal justice system in this country is quite skewed. You observe this in sentencing disparities, for instance. Restorative justice is about restoring what was lost to the victim via fines or monetary compensation (I acknowledge this isn't possible for violent crime) and treating the perpetrator's traumas that are contributing factors to why they committed crime. The goal is to help these people become whole members of society again.
Now, this isn't applicable in every situation. Some people who commit the most heinous crimes out there need to be punished severely and taken out of society. But for most, we're perpetrating this prison cycle by taking things like simple drug possession and consensual sex work (where there's no discernible victim except maybe the individual harming themselves) and throwing people in prison. Then, it's harder for them to get a job, it continues to re-traumatize them, and it takes them back to addictive behaviors. This is not making society better, but continuing a cycle that far too many people—particularly from the lowest rungs of the economic ladder—get stuck in.
So again, my question for Prop 36 would be: What are we doing besides enacting “stricter penalties”? We need to go beyond the black-and-white mentality of “just lock them up.” We need nuance.
That being said, I think there should be a range of sentencing guidelines that can be applied case by case. Maybe instead of changing certain crimes back to felonies, California should look at the sentencing guidelines for a misdemeanor and adjust there.
ON: If we zoom out from local politics to the 2024 presidential race, we assume you're observing many of the same things we do here in Silicon Valley. Something that particularly grinds our gears is the “ever-growing blob” of government, how bureaucracies continually expand while choking out the free market.
Looking at other major political parties, do you see any major differences in terms of their approaches to expanding the federal government's power?
CO: Looking at the main line of each party, there's always debts and deficits, they're backing the military industrial complex in some way, etc. But it definitely differs at the edges.
Take the fringes of the Republican Party. You see Donald Trump talking about using the Department of Justice to take down people attacking him, and how his campaign is all about vengeance from 2020. Then, if we shift to the Democratic Party, see the Harris administration's priority on expanding the government—but through a more status quo, big government liberal, “find every solution through central government” way. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if she's open to passing an assault weapons ban to limit the Second Amendment in that way; and in every area of policy, she's either wanting to fund a program to solve the problem or regulate that problem by limiting the free market.
Both of these approaches to expanding the government's power are dangerous. Trump's is more erratic, and Harris's more predictable. But both would expand the scope of government.
ON: We're going to end with a signature Opp Now question (and give us a second to polish our reading glasses): What's the best book you’ve read that's informed your view of politics?
CO: In my opinion, the best primer to the Libertarian philosophy is “The Libertarian Mind” by David Boaz, who recently passed away this year. It's one of the best communicators of the Libertarian framework and values, which deeply influence how I approach politics. I recommend anyone to read this book.
More on Chase Oliver's presidential campaign here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Related:
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.