I'm not suggesting any of us who have an unlibertarian position on some issue ought to resign our positions in the party. If I were, then I would have to resign my own positions at the national and state levels. All I'm suggesting is that we should let the Libertarian Party be libertarian and not try to block the group from taking libertarian positions we personally disagree with.
My claim that your position in support of Prop. Q is unlibertarian is based on a very straightforward analysis of the application of the Non-Aggression Principle: Demanding under threat of violence that people move their tents from shared property, even when no other co-owner of that shared property has any immediate competing desire to use the space, is initiating force against them.
To say as you do that putting up a tent in the commons even when no one else is seeking to use the space in question is itself an initiation of violence, is to say that every time someone goes backpacking in the wilderness and sets up a tent, every time someone goes to the beach or Golden Gate Park and sets out a blanket or some folding chairs, every time someone parks their car in the commons (and that is clearly a big one, because often they are parking where others do want to use the same space!), they are also initiating violence! If setting up a tent on the sidewalk is "appropriating the commons for (one's) own personal use", then so are all these other uses.
You're right that I'm unsatisfied with the analogy of corporate shareholders as a rationale for restricting peaceful use of the commons. However I acknowledge it is an interesting argument that bears further consideration. If shares are sold as representing a stake in the ownership of the entire company, and not just a right to a portion of its profits, perhaps those shareholders should have some rights regarding corporate property.
But I disagree that my position implies we must choose between unlimited government and no government at all, or that there can never be any commons or public property managed by elected bodies – only that the ability of those officials to impose rules on the populace must be carefully circumscribed. The U.S. Constitution recognizes, for example, rights to freedom of speech and public assembly in the commons which cannot be abridged. (The U.S. Supreme Court has subsequently allowed government officials to restrict the "time, place and manner" of such usages, but such authority is not found in the document itself and thus amounts to an unauthorized power grab.)
Basically, government controls over the commons should be limited to ensuring that people are not violating each other's rights in the space. I don't think a right exists to set up a permanent, stationary structure in the commons and have it left alone, but my examples above show that people set up temporary mobile structures all the time (hiking tents, cars, folding chairs, chairs and tables put out on the sidewalk by restaurants and bars, etc.), and government cannot rightly discriminate among these various similar uses in the name of enforcing the tastes, preferences, or norms of a majority, any more than government can rightly prevent people from carrying certain objects (e.g. guns) in the commons just because a majority in some area (e.g. San Francisco, or anywhere in the world that lacks a Second Amendment, if you want to fall back on a legalistic argument) may not like it.
If you say that government can legitimately undertake such infringements in the name of a majority, then it is you who are essentially saying that the commons do not really exist; that they are just property owned by government on which individuals have only such rights as a majority is willing to allow them.
I do see a legitimate role for government in arbitrating disputes however, as well as setting up rules designed to facilitate fair and equal access to areas that are desired for competing uses. If you go to the tennis courts at Dolores Park, for instance, you will find posted rules limiting length of play when others are waiting. Similarly I think it is reasonable to have rules allowing the reservation of picnic tables in Golden Gate Park, the use of the steps of City Hall for demonstrations, etc., in order to avoid conflict over people seeking to use the same space at the same time. But not to prejudice some uses over others based on social popularity. I can't imagine a standard that sets up a clean definition of "appropriating the commons for their own personal use" which does what you want it to do without crossing that line. But if you think you can come up with one, I'm all ears.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))