Re: A Libertine Question

At 04:50 PM 7/30/96 -0700, Mike Duvos wrote:
>Alan Horowitz writes:
>> On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
>> 
>> > Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being
>> > poor or indigent a crime.
>> 
>>    Horseshit. This is a poorly-disguised re-tread of one of the standard 
>> lines of the Patrice Lumumba University brand of leftist agitprop.
>
>Here in Seattle, we have an city attorney who specializes in creating
>ordinances to annoy and harrass the underclass, often paving new roads
>over former civil liberties in the process.

The process of regulatory torment of homeless folks is divisible into two
methods: restriction of anonymous behavior (e.g., travel, public speech,
business transactions), and restriction of behavior to property-owners
(sleeping, eating, assembly, recreation).

The former is or should be disturbing to crypto-anarchy friendly folks
because it limits the ability of every person to travel or make purchases or
otherwise engage in economic activity anonymously.

The latter should be disturbing to crypto-anarchy friendly folks because of
the relationship between physical presence and regulatory jurisdiction - a
government which requires you to establish your relationship to something
valuable within its jurisdiction (like a car or real estate) before allowing
you to exercise human/economic rights effectively establishes its ability to
regulate you by seizing or otherwise burdening your relationship with your
possession.

In practice, the no-anonymity requirement is frequently conflated with the
latter, in that demonstrating your relationship to valuable property implies
susceptibility to punishment (and/or sufficient
socialization/indoctrination) and long-term presence for later enforcement,
such that a request for identification (with corresponding dossier check for
previous instances of "antisocial" behavior) is likely to be unnecessary or
penologically nonproductive. Which is a long way to say that street cops
don't usually torment people with nice cars and/or houses, so those folks
don't need to be so concerned about making sure their "papers" are "in
order". So the unconstitutional and oppressive character of the various laws
Mike Duvos refers to is mitigated by their lack of evenhanded enforcement.
If a cop can demand ID from someone who "looks like he doesn't belong here"
he can demand it from you. (modulo driving, this isn't legal. But give
Justice [sic] Rehnquist and Clinton and random congressional maniacs a few
more years and see where things stand.)

Both requirements are reducible to the notion that a person must be
punishable before they may act - in the extreme case, a person must be
punishable before they will be allowed to exist. I find it very difficult to
harmonize this position with the idea that governments exist to serve
people, not the other way around. But maybe I just don't have my head right. 

Because homelessness itself is not inherently problematic (or easily
distinguishable from "legitimate" activity), it's difficult to define it as
a crime beyond Mr. "strong libertarian [sic]" Horowitz' "threat to public
order and decorum". Cities have learned to regulate everyday activities
since those are the only ones they're certain homeless people will engage
in. Police officers have, in general, the good sense to avoid applying these
regulations to people who look like they don't present a threat to "public
order and decorum". Today those laws are applied to people who may smell bad
and don't want traditional jobs. Tomorrow they may be applied to people who
won't use only government-approved crypto or who want to defend themselves
with guns or other weapons. And just as some people "don't have a right to
live in Seattle" if they won't toe the line, other people may find they
"don't have a right to live in the United States." * 

(* Other people (apparently not "strong libertarians") buy into all of that
suspicious crap about the Bill of Rights and people being allowed to be
themselves even if other people find it upsetting or non-decorous. But they
probably don't appreciate how difficult it is to be a policeman, so we'll
just ignore them, they're probably leftists. If they don't like how things
go here, they can just get the hell out, hmm? Banning T-shirts with crypto
code printed on them - that's one thing. But banning ratty old T-shirts that
haven't been washed is totally different.) 

The regulation of ordinary social and economic activity is not a
"homelessness issue", it's a "freedom issue". If you admit that it can
legitimately be regulated but reassure yourself with your trust in the
discretion and good judgement of the regulators, your liberty is more a
matter of grace than of right. Have a nice day.  
--
Greg Broiles                |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of
gbroiles@netbox.com         |an in-court demonstration by the People
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt
                            |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

We require people who have syphilis to divulge who their sex partners
were. I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I haven't heard of any
activist movement against it in the past 80-odd years it's been in effect. 

We require property owners who don't have city-sewage hookups, to install 
their septic tanks and maintain them in certain defined configurations 
which estop them from contaminating the neighbor's well. I don't know if 
that's a good idea or not - but I haven't seen sentiment against sewage 
regulation of property owners.


So why should we be terribly upset about an ordinance which makes it 
illegal to operate a residential kitchen and a residential sewge-disposal 
operation in a city park or a city sidewalk?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:

> We require people who have syphilis to divulge who their sex
> partners were...
> 
> We require property owners...to install their septic tanks...
> [to] estop them from contaminating the neighbor's well...
> 
> So why should we be terribly upset about an ordinance which
> makes it illegal to operate a residential kitchen...in a city
> park or a city sidewalk?

Alan's analogies(?) are not parallel.  In his syphilis example,
the requirement exists so that sex partners can be warned that
they may have contracted the disease.  A parallel requirement
might be that feeding programs for street people would have to
divulge that the food was prepared in uninspected home kitchens.

In his second case, you are simply dealing with the property
rights of adjacent land owners.  The case for regulation of
septic tanks is that the contamination from absent or improperly
installed tanks does not reveal itself as would, say, burning
toxic waste in the back yard.  

I find it amusing that the law is supposedly so concerned with
food purity for the "homeless."  Hang out near a fast-food place
sometime and watch the street people dumpster dive for the
half-eaten remains of other people's Big Macs.  That is the true
alternative to volunteer feeding programs.  (That, or getting a
job.)

The truth is that local officials are perverting the health codes
to harass these operations, not to "protect the homeless."  At
it's core, it is a hypocritical abuse of power, not unlike the
invocation of the Four Horseman to keep strong crypto out of the
hands of average Americans.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:
> We require property owners who don't have city-sewage hookups, to install 
> their septic tanks and maintain them in certain defined configurations 
> which estop them from contaminating the neighbor's well. I don't know if 
> that's a good idea or not - but I haven't seen sentiment against sewage 
> regulation of property owners.
> So why should we be terribly upset about an ordinance which makes it 
> illegal to operate a residential kitchen and a residential sewge-disposal 
> operation in a city park or a city sidewalk?

     As long as you are enforcing it on everyone, I don't think you'd have a 
problem, but to force some one from cooking food for homeless people, and 
allow a family barbeque, is IMO wrong. If it is unsafe/unsanitary to cook 
food in a certain way, it is unsafe/unsanitary. Selective enforcement is 
wrong. 

     Force the yuppies on a sunday afternoon barbeque to get a permit and 
see how long the law lasts.

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

> > illegal to operate a residential kitchen and a residential sewge-disposal 
> > operation in a city park or a city sidewalk?
>      As long as you are enforcing it on everyone, I don't think you'd have a 
> problem

    Let's clarify something here. I am not complaining about these
fruitcakes who want to help the homeless retain their drug & alcohol
stupors, by taking care of them the way one takes care of a child - buying
the food, cooking the food, putting the food on their plate, etc. 

I anm referring to the homeless people who stake out "their" peice of a 
publicly owned real estate, and set up a continuing residence - cardboard 
or better box, ersatz cooking facilities, etc, etc. And then start acting 
out their own particular psychoses. Which typically involves accosting 
passersby, or worse.

Ya know, if these homeless folks were even doing this stuff with decorum,
 and not making disturbances and assaulting people, I for one wouldn't
give a shit.  Some may recall, as I do, the report in the New York Times a
few years ago about a chap who set up household 30 feet up in a tree in
Central Park. He was living there for 2 years before the Park Rangers
noticed and then evicted him. The fellow had several rooms, and even
running water. Don't ask me how. 

I admire that dude.