Propose that the LPSF support Prop. G and oppose Prop. Q

Hi All. OK, I'll weigh in too, since we do not have consensus here. I
support Q, the prohibition of tents on the sidewalks. When they had the
Sit/Lie measure about a year before I became active, I was rather torn on
the issue but in the end, I'm pretty sure I voted NO on it. Frankly, I'm
not that keen on the folks lying on the sidewalks, but I can walk around
them, so I can live with that without giving the government more to do when
there are real victims out there getting shot, mugged, and robbed.
However, pitching a tent right there on a public sidewalk which is for
EVERYONE'S use, not just that person's use--that's just too much. What
gives that person the right to hog the sidewalk when everyone pays for it
and ought to have full use of it (or at least not have to walk in the
street to get around them)? Libertarian or not, I don't think it's wrong
of the police to make them remove their tent from a public sidewalk. What
natural right does that person have to occupy that space like it's their
own castle? The one thing I don't care for in Q is the assumption that the
taxpayers must house that person if we authorize the police to make him
remove his tent--that's forced giving once again and very un-Libertarian,
but as a taxpayer who's forced to pay for all these homeless services
anyway, I would probably prefer to get them off the sidewalk so everyone
can now use it again. Sorry, Starchild, I would not support the LPSF
spending any money opposing this measure.

Now on G--I just read it again a few more times. It doesn't move me that
much because frankly I don't see it accomplishing alot, and it seems more
like a symbolic measure, but I lean to supporting it since it looks like it
would make the group more independent by removing it from being under the
thumb of the Police Commission. Giving it a new name with the word
"Accountability" seems like a trendy political thing to do, which doesn't
impress me. Mind you, I am concerned about it having a special budget by
itself because we know how that ends up working out in this city--not
good. Also requiring a performance audit every two years--sounds good, but
it might just end up being another useless government report. I'm not
opposed to what it's trying to accomplish--get bad cops off the force--but
I have doubts it will change things much. I guess I'll vote yes on this
one, but I'm not that sold on it to recommend that the LPSF spend any funds
supporting it.

Since the tree one (E) was mentioned, I support that one because frankly
the way things play out in this city, it was either a setaside or a parcel
tax, and the setaside is a more reasonable measure since the property
owners never asked The City to put in the trees so why should they be
singled out to pay for the maintenance?


Aubrey….please confirm you read the message I just sent in response to Francoise. Your reply suggests you didn’t have time to read it before you sent that. Maybe you will reconsider.


Hi Mike and All. I had not read your post to Francoise since I was typing
mine at the time. Now I've read yours 3 times, and I still support Q. I
really don't care what the campers' politics are--I just want them to move
their tents so I can get by! They can be as anti-Libertarian or
pro-statist as they want--just move your stuff and don't block the way for
others. They didn't pay a user's fee to inhabit this bit of property--what
gives them squatters' rights? Their rights shouldn't be less than other
members of the public, but why should they be entitled to more? As a
Libertarian I support user fees for camping in government parks, not on
government sidewalks. Sorry, Mike, Q is reasonable to me.


Exactly, Mike. Well said. And furthermore I challenge anyone here to show me a tent on the sidewalk where it is impossible to get by. I ride my bike all over the parts of town where homeless people congregate, including in my own neighborhood, and I see tents all the time. I can't recall ONE SINGLE INSTANCE where there was no room to walk around them on the sidewalk! People willing to have a poor person hauled off to jail, when you know or ought to know as libertarians what the government is and how it has created this poverty and how it treats people in the criminal "justice" system, just so that they don't have to WALK A FEW EXTRA STEPS, makes me sick! There but for the infinitely changeable circumstances of life go you or any of us!

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))


For the libertarian, the argument hinges on one’s view of the legitimacy of the State. Is the State a legitimate organization, capable of owning property? Or is it a band of thieves surviving off of theft (taxation)?

If the former, then it’s within its authority to ban tents on its property. If the latter, then it has no business doing so.

I’m of the second conviction. How about you?