So, what's the LPSF position on the Occupy movement"?

Marcy,

  I wasn't suggesting a blanket statement of support, but rather a
position that supports the pro-freedom aspects of Occupy, and the
basic idea of occupying public spaces for First Amendment purposes,
while opposing Occupiers' anti-freedom views and actions that
constitute aggression (along with those of agents of the State).

  Nor did I say I believe the core demands of the Occupiers are
"freedom' as we libertarians interpret freedom." I don't believe that.
All I was saying is that I believe they are on aggregate more pro-
freedom than the list in your previous message made them out to be.

  What did you think of the lists I compiled of views and actions we
could potentially support and oppose (below)? Disagreements?
Suggestions of additional items to add to one or both lists?

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

P.S. - Have you been to any of the Occupy protest sites and/or talked
with anyone involved?

Leslie,

  I'm glad that the United States has traditionally operated (at least for those whose rights were legally acknowledged) on pretty much the opposite premise as your homeowner's association! The traditional approach, as set forth in the Constitution, is that people can do what they want in the "public square" unless it's specifically prohibited. This approach is codified in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which many libertarians have championed:

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  Regarding point #2 on my "support" list below, I don't think it's essential that we absolutely condemn all government health codes. Indeed, I would be troubled were we to simply condemn reasonable rules to prevent the spread of deadly viruses and such. What I was getting at is more related to the *arbitrary enforcement* of health codes as a fig leaf for government control (in this case using alleged violations as an excuse to crack down on Occupy protesters, in many other cases to impose unnecessary costs on businesses, etc.)

  In general I think the rule should be that government health officials should not get involved in a situation unless it truly poses a health crisis, and there have either been many deaths or widespread illnesses, or there is unquestionably a high imminent danger of such, which no non-government solutions are readily available to address. Further, any interventions should be made on a neutral, scientific basis that assesses relative risks in different cases and prioritizes the most serious health risks. The point has been made, for instance, that there is less litter and human waste at the Occupy encampment than on a typical street in the Tenderloin, but authorities do not prioritize the situation in the Tenderloin as they have prioritized going after the Occupy protesters.

  Regarding points #1 and #5, these are obviously related. I believe they both turn on the question of whether Occupy protesters are "excluding" people from using public space, since if Occupy protesters are doing nothing wrong, then there is no reason for the police to try to evict them humanely, let alone using tear gas and billy clubs. I contend that they are not. My observation has been that members of the public can readily go down to the Occupy camps and hang out in those areas, as I have done on several occasions.

  It seems to me that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" dictates that Occupy opponents should have to prove that protesters are systematically acting to exclude others from the spaces they occupy, before any systematic police action against them is undertaken.

Love & Liberty,
                                     ((( starchild )))