Private Security Forces Patrol Oakland - WSJ.com

Rob,

  I'll probably be talking with Bill some more soon and can bring it up
if you think it's important, but my sense is that the Patrol Specials
may be one of the areas where he's already pretty much in our camp.

  What issue(s) do you think it's most important that he improve his
position(s) on?

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Rob,

  Any reason they choose? Are you sure that's what he believes? Of
course even if he only thinks it's okay for City Hall to block
businesses coming in for certain reasons this is still bad, but is it
any worse than many other equally clear issues of government
overreach? I mean, it would be easy to name dozens of local examples.
I'm kind of puzzled that you would single out this particular economic
liberties issue as a litmus test.

  From having heard Bill Hemenger at several different forums come
across as much more ready than most to see corporations with a
favorable eye, my best guess is that he thinks this is such a key
issue for what District 8 residents want in a Supervisor that the
alternative to embracing some degree of NIMBYism would be an
unacceptably large hit to his electability. The sad part is, he would
quite possibly be correct in that estimation. Certainly I understand
it won't help much that he's less NIMBY in his heart than he appears,
if he's won't vote his convictions, but it may be that it's not so
much a matter of him failing to have sufficiently libertarian views as
it is a failure to be insufficiently ideological in general and too
"pragmatic" (a common ailment strongly afflicting most politicians,
Chris Daly being perhaps a notable local exception).

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Rob,

  I guess I would say a worse government policy would be one which
represents a more unequivocal loss of liberty in the world. If out-of-
town businesses are blocked from locating in San Francisco, they will
simply locate elsewhere, and some other community will get the
economic benefit. A business's consequent choice to locate in Fresno
instead of SF may be an economic negative from a *San Franciscan*
perspective, but an economic positive from the perspective of someone
living in Fresno (with any associated negative after-effects also
becoming positives).

  By contrast, if a city government arrests more people for victimless
crimes, those people have lost their freedom without any corresponding
benefit to anyone anywhere else. Similarly if government imposes a new
fee on local businesses, that is a transfer of wealth from the
voluntary sector to the government sector that does not produce a
corresponding benefit to anyone.

  But I probably wouldn't make either of those issues a litmus test for
endorsing a local politician either. There are so many issues, without
any single one being clearly of much greater importance than others
(to my mind at least), that I feel the best approach is to try to get
a sense of how pro- or anti-freedom a person is across the board
rather than putting too much weight on any single position. From a
strategic point of view, as I've said, I think it's generally in our
interest at the local level to put a higher overall priority on civil
liberties issues that will appeal to the left-leaning SF majority (an
approach that also serves to help counteract the trend of the LP
becoming more conservative), but this consideration too should only
carry so much weight.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

If you've gotten him to support our position on prostitution and drug
legalization, I'll overlook his shortcomings on economic liberty.

But something tells me you've not gotten him to support our position
on prostitution or drugs. There's a name for a Democrat who is as bad
on economic issues as any other Democrat, but who also takes a hard
line stance on victimless crimes. It's Kamala Harris.

Rob