The Saga Continues

Hi All. Yesterday in the late afternoon I got a call from Gregory at the
Department of Elections that in reviewing the ballot argument submissions
they now "realize" that Prop B (Les' CCSF tax increase and extension) is a
"district" measure and the rules for district measures are no paid
arguments, so they will not be publishing our (Les') argument and returning
the money. So, now there will be *absolutely* *no* voice against this
measure in the Voters Handbook! Needless to say, my blood has been boiling
since the call. I finally just sent off an email to the SF Examiner
editors and then another completely separate one to John Arntz, Director of
the DOE about the whole thing. I told them we will not be accepting the
money back and we cannot find anything in the elections code saying a paid
argument cannot be accepted (thanks, Marcy, for the quick research) for
such measures, if in fact this measure is really a district measure then it
should be listed at the bottom of their propositions chart with Prop RR
under "District Measures."

I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but it also seems odd that it took
them several days to figure out that this one is now a "district" measure.
I suspect more hanky panky, but I could be wrong. I will use the fact that
several days passed before this recent "discovery" as leverage if they come
up with all kinds of legal double talk to get out of printing the argument.

Stay tuned for the sparks to fly!

Thanks!
Aubrey

Aubrey….given your recent experience with the “State”, let’s revisit Michael Edelstein’s sage message from the other day. So far there hasn’t been a reply that I’ve seen.

“For the libertarian, the argument hinges on one’s view of the legitimacy of the State. Is the State a legitimate organization? (Capable of owning property or doing anything else) Or is it a band of thieves surviving off of theft (taxation) and fraud. If the former, then it’s within its authority to ban tents on its property.” I will add then it is also totally within its power to simply stiff the democratic process and the rights of the citizens and voters.

If you believe it is a legitimate organization, then it is totally within its right to do all these things that make your blood boil as well as own property and kick people off “public” land it doesn’t like. If you believe it is not legitimate, then it has no business owning land or doing the things that make your blood boil. Do you see the connection? You can’t have it both ways and have intellectual consistency.

If there was the time to work with this Venn Diagram below, it could be made to fit this discussion. Please use your imagination.

No on Q equals the State can’t do what they are doing with this election because they are illegitimate. .

Yes on Q says the State is legitimate and totally within its right to manipulate this election as you most clearly see. And we should shut up about it and calmly accept our proper place in the structure as serfs.

What is it Libertarians?

Mike

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/VennConservatives.jpg

[http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/VennConservatives.jpg]

image001.jpg

After his spending so much time, effort, and personal peace, fighting the system on a subject of immediate attention, Mike, are you saying Aubrey is viewed as shutting up and accepting his state as a serf?

Maybe we are dealing with a question of style of how we prefer to fight egregious actions of a system. My hope has always been that people do get involved and fight. And when they agreed on a method, they fight together. When they don't agree, they fight independently.

Marcy

image001.jpg

Michael Edelstein’s message is total drivel. His message is that you must believe either (A) that all of government and everything it does is illegitimate or (2) that there should be no government whatever. This dilemma is broken by saying that some government is legitimate, but that most of what modern governments do is illegitimate.

“You can’t have it both ways and have intellectual consistency”!!!! Rubbish. There is NO inconsistency in thinking that some things that governments do is illegitimate and some things not. Only simpletons thinks in such either/or terms.

The only totally stateless societies I know of very primitive societies such as the Kalahari Bushmen or the Congo forest pygmies. All other societies recognize the need for such government structures. Certainly no densely populated and complex society that I know has lacked a government of some sorts.

“ Yes on Q means the State is legitimate and totally within its right to manipulate this election…….and we should shut up about it and calmly accept our proper place in its structure as serf”!!!!!! Bullshit! Absolute total bullshit.

Sorry for the language, but I could not believe my eyes when I read this.

Les

Marcy....whether Aubrey is acting like a serf or not isn't the issue. The issue is that we either believe the State is legitimate or not. If it isn't legitimate, and the state doesn't own the election system and can't legitimately game the election system, then we fight it which is what we are doing. But we also have to vote no on Q to be intellectually consistent. If the state IS legitimate, then we have to accept that they OWN the voting system and we have little to say about it (the way they treat us by the way). Then we should also vote to not support Q because the State legitimately owns the property.

You can't have it both ways and be intellectually consistent.

Mike

Oh Rubbish.

We do NOT have to judge on whether the state is totally legitimate or illegitimate to vote yes on Q. There is NO inconsistency in saying that some things the state does is illegitimate, but thatthe state itself and some things it does are legitimate. This idea that the state is either totally legitimate or totally illegitimate is absolute nonsense.

Les

Nothing left for me to say. Les just said it all. :heart_eyes:

Marcy

Thanks, Les.

I’m not clear. Are you responding to me or to Mike? (I’m only responsible for my statements.)

I believe I was responding to his statements which cited your email.

But it is not clear to me that there is any difference between your view and his.

So I don't know what the point is of asking this question.

Les

Will get more into this later…but thought this list might enjoy this video by Penn Gillette on Libertarianism.

http://www.aei.org/publication/penn-jillette-on-libertarianism-taxes-trump-clinton-and-weeds/?

One of his best points is….anything we ask the government to do for us, we have to ask whether or not we would personally use a gun to do it ourselves. I ask this list, would you personally put a gun to the heads of the people who pitch tents on the sidewalks and tell them to move on? I’m asking each and every one of you. That’s what you are asking the government to do to those people. Put a gun to their head and tell them to move on. I’d much prefer Marcy and Francoise’s water hose and lye.

Mike

Mike:

Allowing tent squatting involves a considerable amount of guns to heads also. The City has to hire lots of social workers to deal with these people. From what I have heard there is lots of petty crime and filth (aka feces) around these encampments. All of this requires city employees to deal with. City employees cost money, lots of money. This money has to raised by taxation. Taxation involves putting guns to peoples heads and demanding that they hand over their money. So you do NOT solve the problem of guns to heads by allowing tent squatting on the public domain.

Ultimately the solution is that people who cannot afford to live here have to move someplace else. Or private organization have to step up and provide support for these people so that they do not have to camp out on the public domain.

But you CANNOT avoid the problem of guns to heads by simply allowing squatting on the public domain.

Les

“I believe I was responding to his statements which cited your email.”

Les, I’d be happy to respond to your thoughts about my statements in my email. Please cite those, not Mike’s. Thanks. Michael

I have not been following this debate, so I missed many points. But I want to say that the US Supreme Court in the late 1930's in CIO v Hague ruled that public sidewalks and parks must be open to first amendment activity, and struck down a Jersey City ordinance that prohibited leafleting and picketing on public sidewalks. So whether the government likes it or not, it is in the interest of the free circulation of ideas that government be limited in what it can say and do about public sidewalks.
I know putting up a tent is very different from first amendment activity. It seems to me it would be wise to differentiate between different types of public sidewalks. Some are crowded with pedestrians. Others, though, are very wide and get very little foot traffic. Maybe one-size-fits-all is not a good policy.
Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

Mike you said you were asking each one of us, so here is my response: Yes.

My response, of course, matches the question in its level of hyperbole.

There is nothing, absolutely no sound bite or quote from Scripture that will change my positions on the two proposals we have been discussing.

Marcy

Thank you Marcy….it was expected.

Mike

And a good decision that was. Thanks for the reminder, Richard. But yes, you are correct, tents are very different from political leaflets.

Marcy