Civil liberties arise in the defense of inalienable rights, by collective action.
Inalienable rights are routinely extinguished by violence, coercion, and fraud, only surviving when they are vindicated with the help of others.
There are mutual aid agreements to articulate the conditions, circumstances, and remedies for infringements. These agreements are the foundation of the legal system and government.
I'll let you two philosophize. Right now I will occupy myself with reading the text of CA AB 2492, which expands the description of blight to the point that the homes of people with lower incomes would forever be in peril of being taken thru eminent domain. Talk about infringing on civil liberties!!!
Once I understand the specifics I will write an article for the Nine County Coalition website and encourage LTE's on the subject. That's my way of arguing for civil liberties. We all have our own style.
Marcy
Sorry to hear that you consider philosophy beneath you and unimportant, Marcy. Or was it not your intent to be as dismissive as that came across? But I agree that opposing AB 2492 sounds like a worthy cause. If your article expands on the theme you touch on here of government oppression of poor people via this kind of legislation, analyzing "blight" designations not just from a clinical, property-rights perspective, but as a form of class warfare being waged by some wealthier members of society against the less wealthy, then I think you will likely succeed in communicating part of the libertarian message in a manner that won't be mistaken for the usual narrowly-framed bourgeoisie/Republican narrative, which for all its supposed concern about the harmful effects of government regulation, rarely manages to extend that awareness to the harmful nature of anti-poor regulations like bans on panhandling or sidewalk tents. Good luck.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Panhandling and tent squatting on property that you don't own is NOT a right. I am totally unaware of any “harmful nature” of laws banning these activities that you are referring to.
Les
With all due respect Les….everyone owns “public property”. That’s the problem with “public” anything. It’s called the “Tragedy of the Commons”.
As Aubrey and I were discussing the other day, if we truly want to represent for “Property Rights” in our Libertarian discussions, and fend off constant attacks on those rights, we need to show people the problems with “Public” property. If property is truly private, then the owners of the property can do what they want with it. Then they can insist that people don’t panhandle or pitch tents on it. But not if it is “public” unless there is a lack of logical consistency in the argument.
Otherwise the Libertarians are right back there in the muck with the majority-rule Democrats who already feel they can constantly keep putting parcel fees and transfer taxes on private property anytime they can get 51% to agree. Where is the line of demarcation between public and private? Unless we can draw that line clearly, we fail in our arguments.
Personally, I’m happy to let private property owners decide what they want to do with the sidewalks. They are already nearly 100% responsible for those sidewalks anyways. Let’s formalize the contract with property owners to the street.
OR….I’m perfectly happy to walk through tent cities, dogs and panhandlers on those sidewalks everywhere until someone wakes up and figures out just how stupid the whole “public” argument is. Maybe some clarification will follow. But in the meantime, let’s not fall into the trap of misconstruing public property as only for the benefit of one class of the “public” and not another. It doesn’t help anyone.
Mike
Les,
One can turn that around and say with equal validity that prohibiting people from panhandling or having tents on property that you don't own is not a right.
And then, applying the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, one can ask this simple question: Who is initiating force, a person who asks for money or puts up a tent, or a person who tries to have government criminalize them (take their money or put them in a cage) for doing these things?
I trust you agree that government stealing money from taxpayers to enforce such prohibitions does constitute harm? Or do you feel that government stealing money is only harmful when they spend the stolen money on causes that you disagree with?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Mike,
You say that private property owners are "already nearly 100% responsible for those sidewalks anyways". I would contend this is not really true. Many public sidewalks in San Francisco do not even abut private property. Even those which do are in many respects not treated as the responsibility of the neighboring property owner. If someone commits a crime on the sidewalk outside your house – robs someone, for instance – is the property owner ever held liable for that crime? Of course not. The closest we come to that is the government penalizing owners of certain types of businesses such as nightclubs, liquor stores, etc., which are unfairly singled out for incidents that happen on nearby sidewalks by means of the business's permits being put in jeopardy or having conditions attached to them – a practice I consider absurd, outrageous, anti-business, and unfair.
Furthermore, Proposition E on the November ballot would transfer responsibility for maintaining sidewalk trees, and liability for those trees should anyone be injured by a falling branch, stumble over a root, etc., away from private property owners and back to the city government. We talked about it briefly at our last meeting, and it's my recollection (anyone please feel free to correct me if your memory differs) that everyone who was there including yourself pretty much agreed with Aubrey that it's a good measure, because (again correct me if I'm wrong on the rationale) the city government, not the property owners, generally planted those trees.
Well, the city government, not the property owners, generally put in the sidewalks too! In fact, the description of Prop. E reads, "Responsibility for Maintaining Street Trees and Surrounding Sidewalks" [emphasis added]. So applying the Prop. E standard, the sidewalks should be public, not private. And if the sidewalks are public, then it follows as you say that everyone owns them, and any owner (i.e. any member of the public) should be able to pitch a tent, panhandle, or otherwise freely use those spaces, so long as it does not interfere with other owners having the same freedoms*.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
*And no, this does not guarantee personal comfort levels! A guarantee of freedom of religion, or speech, for instance, does not guarantee that a person exercising such freedom in public has a right to feel comfortable around other members of the public when handing out neo-Nazi literature outside the supermarket, say, or standing on a soapbox and preaching the virtues of Satanism in a public plaza. Just so, a guarantee of freedom of movement on public sidewalks likewise does not mean that one has the right to be comfortable while out for a stroll (i.e. not see, smell, or hear anything one may consider distasteful as a result of others using the space), only the right to engage in the activity without being the victim of force-initiation.
All I meant Starchild is that the property owners already have to pay to fix cracks and have lots of other liabilities around the maintenance of those sidewalks without the formal ability to have actual ownership. Clarifying that would be a good step in the direction of actual privatization outside of the current “mixed” situation.
Others can speak about that better than me….
Mike
I agree Mike that clarifying the ownership of the sidewalks would be good, but I want that clarifying to go in the direction it mostly already is (i.e. that the sidewalks are public and can be used freely by everyone including for sitting, lying, panhandling, tents, drug use, etc.).
If this public property is to be privatized, the privatization should not be done in a manner that mainly benefits the "haves" (i.e. those who already own property get more property). An extreme version of that is what took place after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with State property that was supposed to belong to all the people being essentially given away at fire-sale prices to wealthy oligarchs and insiders. The damage that this bungled travesty did to the concepts of privatization and capitalism in Russia and elsewhere will probably take many decades to undo.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Property rights don’t come with “haves” and “have nots” aside from what the owner desires for that property. It is free of “public” agenda unless pre-agreed by contract at the time of property purchase.
Aside from that….the “public” should be able to do what they want on “public” space. Otherwise, we have debased ourselves to a simple “majority rules” argument that is used in defense of violations of liberty all the time.
Mike
Just a note: the consensus in this discussion or in the voters' arena is not moving towards public sidewalks meaning pitching tents or lying down is OK
Marcy
By "haves" I simply meant those who own real estate (not counting shared ownership of the commons). Strongly agree that members of the public should be able to do what they want on public land so long as it does not violate the rights of others, and that failure to uphold this is simply succumbing to the majoritarian approach that is routinely used to violate liberty. A majority voting to deny tents in the commons to a minority is like a majority voting to tax a minority.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Marcy,
I don't understand your comment, please clarify.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
It seemed you were indicating to Mike the argument was moving toward tents on sidewalks. I was begging to differ by pointing out some of us here are opposed, and judging by the failure of sit/ lie voters are also opposed.
Marcy
By "the direction it mostly already is" I was referring to my previous comments noting that sidewalks are in most respects treated as public, not private. Proposition E on the current ballot would also take things further in that direction.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
That’s right….but Libertarian thinking is not about “consensus”. It’s about freedom. If we are going to be about “consensus” we should just join the Democrats because this town is 75% Democrat and there will usually be “consensus” of some kind with their agenda. Forget about making cases for anything based on other rational arguments. We can just make “consensus” is our new “g_d”.
Is that what we are doing here?
Mike
Ah. Yes. I misunderstood. You were referring to your position, not the discussion or voter trend.
Sudden thought: would tents or people sleeping on sidewalks be akin to people occupying two seats on a crowded bus, or resting their bags on a seat on an airport terminal? How about people sitting on the floor of a bus blocking the way of other passengers?
Marcy
So no more voting for anything that goes on on LPSF? Sounds great! I will start some changes immediately!!
Marcy
Well presumably all our discussions are going to focus on the best ways to expanding Personal and Economic Liberty….not maximizing simple consensus for the sake of convenience or our personal points of view independent of Libertarian values. I believe that’s what Starchild and I are trying to say here. Starchild has also presented evidence that taking an alternate approach can cost a party at the ballot box. There has to be a balance in the personal and economic freedom pitch for the LPSF. I might propose we consider voting on making it our policy to choose an equal number of economic AND personal freedom issues for each election cycle to make sure we maintain a proper ideological balance.
Mike
I hear you.
Mike