You're right that this has become discussion, better suited for the LPSF-Discuss list than the LPSF-Activists list. I've copied my reply to the Discuss list, and encourage further replies along the lines of general discussion there.
On the narrower topic of LPSF action though (and feel free to respond to this part of the message only on LPSF-activists), I urge you, Les, Francoise, and Aubrey to recognize that your positions on this particular issue are not libertarian, because you want to initiate force against people, and not block the LPSF as an organization from taking the libertarian position on Prop. Q.
Please do not take offense in my pointing out that your support for criminalizing tents on public sidewalks is not libertarian. I have some un-libertarian positions myself. For instance, I do not want anyone to be able to own nuclear weapons – neither governments nor individuals. I see them as a clear and present danger to all of us, and feel that the objective of a planet free of these weapons is so important that it justifies initiating force, if necessary, to achieve it. However I do not advocate that the Libertarian Party adopt my position on this issue, because my position is not libertarian. I think the Libertarian Party should consistently stand for what is libertarian.
The solution, as I see it, involves civil disobedience. In a libertarian society, those like myself who want to keep people from owning nuclear weapons would need to violate the law and face the legal penalties (providing restitution to the victims) for initiating force by taking those weapons away from their owners and destroying them. The law should not be on my side. Likewise I think the law should not be on your side in seeking to remove tents from public sidewalks. If you and/or your neighbors demonstrate a consistent willingness to face the legal consequences for initiating force by turning hoses on people and their tents, or whatever, word will get around and most homeless people will generally prefer to avoid the area.
The solution, as I see it, involves civil disobedience... If you and/or your neighbors demonstrate a consistent willingness to face the legal consequences for initiating force by turning hoses on people and their tents, or whatever, word will get around and most homeless people will generally prefer to avoid the area.
You could actually do this, you know. Recruit, if you like, any similar intolerant neighbors or activists you can find who are willing to engage in civil disobedience with you, give any homeless regulars in the area notice of your intentions, if you want to give them a chance to clear out first, and give the police advance notice so they can be on hand to arrest you after you turn on the hoses as well as prevent you from being harmed by any possible violent reaction from individuals being assaulted.
Although I would vehemently disagree with such action and support you facing reasonable legal consequences for it, I would be willing to be present in support of your right to engage in civil disobedience out of respect for your willingness to take personal responsibility for aggression rather than relying on government to do it for you.
Rats, another oops! Also meant to clarify "reasonable legal consequences" to explain that as with any other criminal case, I would vote to acquit even those I thought guilty of committing actual crimes if the penalties seemed disproportionately harsh compared to the offenses.
I think it's very important to point out the ineffectiveness of the State's Mental Health Services tax from proposition 63 in 2004. Given that chronic homelessness strongly corresponds to mental illness, the greater resources available should have fixed the problem, if funding were indeed an issue. This tax isn't going to be repealed any time soon, so practical advocacy to make the most of the state's investment. In fact, the MHST is collected differently than the state's PIT (it gets its own line on the California Tax Return), so arguments about Proposition 55 PIT extension should be considered in tandem with the MHST.
Senator Moorlach's work to define use of MHS revenue predates San Francisco's implementation of Megan's law, and sadly, psychiatric beds have both not increased, but the revolving door Emergency Room system in this city (Dignity Health is the worst offender) both fails in follow up and implementation of conservatorships. Revisiting San Francisco's implementation in light of the Proposition 63 funding clarifications would be a good idea. Senator Moorlach is one of the most fiscally conservative legislators in the state (and a constant hawk on the state's 250-billion dollar unfunded pension liability) but he also has become an expert on cost-effective psychiatric service delivery in Orange County, which will be reaching full implementation this year now that it's bypassed a CEQA lawsuit.
When homelessness is not treated as a mental health issue, and when independent living advocates prevent individuals who do not even recognize their severe mental illness from both declining into homelessness, the public turn to intolerant law and order measures. Mass incarceration relates to this. This is discussed best in a Fred Friendly seminar from a few years ago (I've posted a link below). It's a choice between evils, but I'm trying to be pragmatic rather than devolving into lone wolf ideologically pure tent hugging or hose slinging.
And I speak about this as an individual who was once threatened at gunpoint with a city issue firearm in the hand of a member of the Disability Commission representing the mentally ill [sic].
minds on edge: Facing Mental Illness A Fred Friendly Seminar
>
> > > > > > >
minds on edge: Facing Mental Illness A Fred Friendly Sem... |
>
View on www.youtube.com | Preview by Yahoo |
>
>
Very well said Starchild\. Mike From: lpsf\-discuss@yahoogroups\.com \[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]