Hi Francoise….I understand and respect your position regarding G.
Let’s look at your Q argument. Presumably we can agree there’s a considerable difference between the rights of truly “private property” owners and the very vague private rights of “public” anything. In this discussion we are dealing with the later.
In the public domain, is it right for a “greater majority of citizens” to deprive others of the right to freely assemble on public property for any peaceful purpose? Would it be OK for the government to deprive them of that right if they were peaceful but spewing anti-government rhetoric? Would it be OK for the government to deprive them of that right if they were peaceful but saying things that were very unpopular leading citizens to complain to the government? It seems “no”. From that it also seems OK for people to peacefully camp on public property.
Regarding cleanliness…the City and County of San Francisco regularly clean up considerable messes left in the parks (Dolores most notably) and after events like 420 in GG Park which isn’t legal by any means. So why single out these poor people? Is it just because they are “unpopular” and “undesirable” whereas young hipsters in the Mission or in GG Park are more popular? The same case could be made in both these situations. But in only one are we talking about prohibiting a behavior using the force of government in advance.
It would be appropriate for the government to get involved when you and Marcy started spraying water and lye on those people and they called the police stop their perception of your violence. Or you could call the police and make your case. In both cases the police and courts might have to get involved and figure it out. That would be fine. But in neither case are you and Marcy deprived of your rights to express yourselves in advance…and neither were those people on the very “public” streets.
The difference with Q is that the behavior, possibly unpopular, is criminalized in advance and not given a platform for expression. That seems to be a very dangerous position for Libertarians to take. Jews were unpopular. Armenians were unpopular. Educated Cambodians and Chinese were unpopular. How about those perverted homosexuals and seemingly criminal gypsies. Was it OK for the “greater majority of citizens” to deny them access to the places they wanted to live? Let’s not ignore that the denial of rights led to their death at the hands of government elected by the “greater majority of citizens”.
Are we making any progress here?