FYI
Mike
He sort of knows....but Tony does have a very interesting plan for public housing with Matt Gonzalez. The inside scoop is that if elected, he will appoint Matt as head of SF Public Housing and Matt is going to announce that they are going to GIVE the units to the tenants so they can own them.
Now if he can actually do that, that would be a good thing but Tony is not going to get elected. If you ask me he is basically running to give the establishment a bloody nose. He is quite good at that. And for the reasons of "home ownership" and giving the establishment a hard time (Tony knows where the bodies are buried) Sarosh is supporting his campaign.
Mike
Hi all,
We cannot speculate about what anyone might, or might not, do.
Even discussing any ideas prematurely may generate opposition and kill them.
Please be extremely circumspect and discreet - these ideas should definitely
be kept off any discussion board.
Political realities will govern the actions of any elected official down the
road.
Thanks,
Sarosh
On Behalf Of Michael Denny
Sorry about that Sarosh....
Mike
Hi Sarosh,
I understand. But how then do you suggest we keep Tony Hall
accountable? If politicians only promise things privately, without
making any commitment publicly or in writing, and take the position
that "political realities" will take precedence over prior intentions
in governing actions, what will ensure they do what they discussed
doing or believing that induced us to support them?
I would like to know what Tony Hall did as Supervisor to support the
libertarian movement. My impression was that he governed more like a
conservative, and didn't seek to work with us once in office.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I have to say that Tony wasn't even consistent as a fiscal
conservative -- e.g. he supported raising Board of Supervisors
salaries. Do you think he has realized that this and other positions
were mistakes? Has he gotten any better on civil liberties since being
duped by Newsom/Elsbernd? What assurances is he willing to give?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Dear Sarosh and All,
I have a little bit of disagreement with Sarosh re: keeping discussion off the boards. If we are talking about the Discussion List, which is public, YES, we keep strategy quiet, and discuss ideas. However, the purpose of the Activist List, which is private, IS to discuss strategy, our own as well as others'.
Sarosh, the LPSF owes you a lot for your past support, and you are welcome discuss stuff in the Activist List, but brace yourself, because this list does not mind telling it like it is!
Kind regards,
Marcy
I think we should honor Sarosh's wishes and not discuss Tony Hall on this
list, but that means we absolutely cannot support him if discussion of his
positions is not allowed. Voting on things they don't understand is the job
of Congress, not the job of LPSF. 
Hall's past actions are definitely not libertarian, and any possible change
in that regard is a big secret, so we must behave as if he will continue to
vote the way he has always voted, i.e., in a manner inconsistent with
libertarian values.
I think Marcy should reply to the inquiry that we're not interested in
discussing Hall's candidacy.
Rob
Excellent point, Rob. Thank you. I have already responded to the inquiry, so all is well.
Marcy
I agree. However, the only issue I remember Tony actually taking a
stand on during his tenure was increasing pay for the Supervisors. What
did he do to incrementally increase liberty during his previous tenure?
~Chris
Sarosh,
But did Tony support property rights in ways that *wouldn't* come
across as just run-of-the-mill conservatism? For instance, did he ever
say or do anything to oppose the police confiscating the possessions
of homeless people? Say or do anything to help empower tenants of
government housing with greater property rights? Say or do anything to
support sex work rights (your body being in some ways your most basic
form of property)? Say or do anything to try to curb the abuses of the
"War on Drugs" (e.g. unreasonable searches and seizures, another
violation of property rights)? Perhaps you read the stories a month or
two back about SFPD getting caught busting into SROs without warrants?
Unless Tony voted for property rights on these types of issues, and
not merely when they benefited the relatively well-to-do, I can't
agree with you that he "solidly voted for property rights" during his
time on the Board.
If you want to argue what's "pragmatic and realistic", here's some
practical, "grown up" politics for you -- San Francisco is
overwhelmingly liberal, and there is a significant political cost here
to being viewed as conservative. If we want to work with and make
inroads with the left-leaning majority, supporting and being close to
conservative politicians is a liability to that goal.
Now I don't personally buy into that whole "practical politics"
argument, so I'm willing to support causes and ideas I think are right
no matter how unpopular they may be, because I think being principled,
acting with integrity, and trying to do what's right rather than
what's popular is how you make the most progress toward your goals in
the long run. But you should know there's nothing particularly
pragmatic for the LPSF about giving people the impression that our
allies are people like Tony, especially when those "allies" aren't
giving us anything in return.
If he wants our support, especially our active and enthusiastic
support, I want to see him step up to the plate and be willing to make
solid, public commitments, not just vague private assurances. I want
to get a sense that he realized he didn't do what he should have last
time, and that he sincerely recognizes the error and wants to correct
it. In short, I want to see Tony Hall 2.0, not just the early 2000s
model rolled out again.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Starchild,
Nice to hear from you!
Of course, you shd only support the politician who best exemplifies the
philosophy and policies you consider most compatible and in alignment of
your own.
In SF, this is not easy, unless you are willing to compromise on your many
requirements.
Libs may sometimes come across to SF electorate as extreme and fringe, which
makes it hard to ever get hardcore Lib elected.
The question is: is a small bite of the loaf better than no bread at all?
Best,
Sarosh
On Behalf Of Starchild
That is hysterical....Bridge is brilliant.
Thanks Sarosh...
Mike
On May 6, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Sarosh Kumana wrote (in part):
As another issue, ideological purity and lack of recognition of political realities keeps libertarians from achieving power and actually implementing their ideas. Would it not be better to accept incremental change, rather than insist on 100% and actually only ever get 0%?
Sarosh
Sarosh,
I encourage you to read the terrific Esquire article about Ron Paul that just came out (see below). It proves that compromising *isn't* necessarily the most effective way to change things, and illustrates the power and reach of an approach that has generally been perceived in terms like "ideological purity" and "lack of recognition of political realities".
Of course Ron Paul is not really "insisting on 100%" of the libertarian vision, as Rob Power will no doubt be quick to point out. As people working at the grassroots level who aren't members of Congress, we can and should be considerably more radical than he is. But I think his experience shows that one can have an incredible impact while still taking stances way outside the bounds of what the political establishment considers acceptable parameters for discussion.
On the other hand, I quite like Tony's plan (or whoever's plan we should call it) to put Matt Gonzalez in charge of public housing and focus on getting that housing turned over to its tenants. If you want to call that "incrementalism", that's the kind of incrementalism I can get behind. But to seize the moral high ground from statists on the left, we should be shouting ideas like this from the rooftops, and working to mobilize a constituency of people living in that housing who want to control their own living situations, not keeping them secret. A public campaign will force those who want to perpetuate the status quo to defend government control and privilege against a populist change that would benefit the poor.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Dear Starchild and Sarosh and All Others;
Regarding turning public housing into private housing this is a LTE the SF
Examiner published on April 13 I wrote with the Libertarian affiliation. Some
time back I also wrote an op-ed in the same vein which was published in various
newspapers in California.
The LTE is a very truncated version of all that was in the op-ed but the gist is
still there.
Ron Getty
Convert tenants to owners
Public housing families should take control of their buildings through
conversion to home ownership. Home ownership of Housing Authority units is
possible through partnerships of project families and private financial
lenders. Home ownership assures that housing project families have a stake in
the local community.
Capable residents could provide “sweat equity” to reduce repair and
construction costs, with on-the-job skills training programs. Private long-term
mortgages would set mortgage payments at current rental rates. Residents
purchasing could have property taxes abated to lessen the financial strain.
Family-oriented home ownership would attract corner groceries and other retail.
Home owners’ associations could hire private community police for neighborhood
protection.
Public housing home ownership would save billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded
housing support. It’s a win-win situation.
Ron Getty, Vice Chair, Libertarian Party, San Francisco
Sarosh,
You appear to be conflating the radical message in our rhetoric with
what we'd settle for in practice.
I'm a strong proponent of legalizing all drugs. However I certainly
would vote for a small reduction in penalties for heroin use if
nothing better were on the ballot.
I'm a passionate proponent of ending all taxation. However I would
vote for a 1% reduction in the state tax if nothing better were on the
ballot.
I'm an avid proponent of abolishing the military. I would vote for
withdrawing U.S. troops from Germany if nothing better were on the
ballot.
Make sense?
Warm regards, Michael