From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 01:27:40 +0800
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Subject: Re: A Libertine Question
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960731130157.0069c420@mail.io.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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.