Property-Is-Theft Movement’s Property Destroyed

When Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles City Council last week reversed their previous support for Occupy L.A. and sent riot police to destroy the Flea Party’s downtown encampment, they also provided the Occupiers with a lesson in how private property gets treated in government hands. 

As our coverage demonstrated, the Occupiers built a fairly impressive town complete with a free circulating library.

All of this was destroyed when the city – a little more than a month after adopting a resolution in support of the local and national Occupy movement – violently expelled the protesters. 

Property that Occupiers were forced to abandon during the unscheduled police raid was not even treated with the respect of escheated property, which the state at least makes an effort to dispose of or monetize. 

Instead, the cops simply destroyed the Occupation’s possessions

"When the people were advised to leave, they were advised to take their property with them. If they don’t take their property, it’s booked as found property," said Tenesha Dobine, a public information officer with the LAPD. "The tents and stuff: that might be considered abandoned property."

Dobine said that anyone who was able to identify property as theirs during the arrests was given a receipt for that property and would be able to reclaim it.

Most of it, however, was simply left behind in the rush of the operation.

"Just like if you went camping and you drove away from your campsite and didn’t come back, you’d expect someone else would take it or it would get thrown away," Dobine said. 

That’s a police officer claiming that the theft of unguarded property should be considered a normal function of civil society. 

The city argues that what Villaraigosa called a "measured" response left a toxic area unworthy of trash/treasure discrimination. But as this AP story shows, nobody with a claim to the contrary was allowed to make the case for saving any of the stuff: 

"It's so contaminated, it doesn't even make sense to sort it out," said Jose "Pepe" Garcia, 49, superintendent of the city's north central sanitation district.

A dozen city sanitation workers were suited up in white coveralls, gloves and boots after reports that there might be a lice or flea infestation, Garcia said.

Sanitation workers had been hauling away as much as 2 tons of trash a day from the site, but hygiene remained a problem despite rows of portable toilets, he said. Plastic gallon bottles of urine and smaller bottles were set aside for special disposal.

"They had no means to wash up. They had no means to shower," Garcia said. "You've got bottles of urine, that's the biggest hazard in there."

Crews have cleaned up homeless encampments with similar issues before but never on the scale of the Occupy LA bivouac.

"I've never seen anything like this," said Elton Atkins, a city refuse collection supervisor.

"Pretty disgusting," said Pamela Thompson, a legal analyst who works nearby and saw the camp almost daily.

"This should have been taken care of a long time ago," she said.

However, one former occupant blamed the police raid for trashing the tent city.

Samantha Schrepel, 27, stood by a stroller containing her 5-month-old son, Kenny, on the sidewalk in front of the fenced-off lawn and chatted with police officers guarding the site.

Schrepel had been staying in the tent city but was elsewhere when it was raided. Her tent, warm blankets and other items were being trashed as she watched.

“Elsewhere when it was raided”? Schrepel should have known that if you leave your stuff like that, it’s legal to steal it. The police can explain how that works.

In a fitting end for a movement based on the idea that all real property and legitimate contractual debt can be virtualized, the Occupy L.A. Library's Facebook page outlives the actual library. 

Paul Detrick was on the ground when the cops kicked the campers out: 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    You've got bottles of urine, that's the biggest hazard in there

    Why? Urine is sterile.

  • ||

    +10 me!

  • WWNGD?||

    Cover yourself in urine or carry someone else's urine from a leaky bottle. Keep telling yourself "It is sterile!"

  • ||

    I'm not saying it's pleasant, but it's not a "hazard". Unless he means that there was enough to fuck up the soil because of the uric acid?

  • ||

    Was there enough to slake my thirst?

    Not quite.

  • ||

    You rarely hear "slake" except in connection with thirst. But here's the definition:

    1. to allay (thirst, desire, wrath, etc.) by satisfying.
    2. to cool or refresh: He slaked his lips with ice.
    3. to make less active, vigorous, intense, etc.: His calm manner slaked their enthusiasm.
    4. to cause disintegration of (lime) by treatment with water. Compare slaked lime.
    5. Obsolete: to make loose or less tense; slacken.

    I want to slake my wrath.

  • cunt||

    cunt

  • Hugh Akston||

    They could have saved it and opened up an auto-urine therapy clinic.

  • ||

    There's gold in those golden showers, Hugh!

  • ||

    +10 me. Keep it up rectal!

  •  ||

    I thought you had a life.

  • tarran||

    He does. That's why Rectal is stalking him. Like a vampire she wants his life-force for herself.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Unless there's a UTI or something else contaminating it.

  • Anton||

    I travel with mu own facilities.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbE3CWzeZgE

  • R||

    It's only sterile if the person it came out of is healthy (i.e. no STD's or UTI's). If they're not, the urine can be tainted.

  • Mensan||

    It's also only sterile while in the body or if it's a midstream specimen collected in a sterile container.

  • ||

    exactly. once it hits the air..then a used waterbottle.. that thing is a bacteria/viral culture.

  • Babylon-Bike-a-Thon||

    Urea decomposes to ammonia in about an hour. It probably goes without saying, but ammonia is pretty toxic.

  • Abdul||

    Samantha Schrepel, 27, stood by a stroller containing her 5-month-old son, Kenny, on the sidewalk in front of the fenced-off lawn and chatted with police officers guarding the site.

    Schrepel had been staying in the tent city but was elsewhere when it was raided. Her tent, warm blankets and other items were being trashed as she watched.

    If that kid manages to survive to adulthood, he'll be a stockbroker.

    And he'll wake from his nightmares screaming "with God as my witness, I'll never live on scrounged tofu again!"

  • wareagle||

    this kid lives in a filth-ridden tent city but the fat kid living in an actual house is yanked away by the state.

  • Zeb||

    Which fat kid?

  • WWNGD?||

    Just for fun I secretly put books by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'reilly on the shelves. I have no idea where I would get these books from, but I think it would be fun to see the reaction.

  • ||

    Maybe some Robert Jordan too.

  • Gojira||

    Fuck that skirt-smoothing, plot-losing-and-picking-back-up-like-800-pages-later asshole. I'm glad he's dead. Those fucking books have made more narrative progress in the last two posthumus installments than in the previous five combined.

  • WWNGD?||

    I guess Robert Jordan would be worth putting on a shelf to watch the reaction.

  • ||

    Did you just admit to reading all of them, Jim?

    FATALITY

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Made it through 9...just didnt have the stamina PLUS if you need a companion guide JUST TO KEEP UP!!! then there is a problem with your story.

  • ||

    I balied partway through the third one (I think). A deadly combination of repetition and aimlessness did me in.

  • WWNGD?||

    "I secretly" should be "I would secretly"

  • AlmightyJB||

    "I think it would be fun to see the reaction."

    They would burn them.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Why do I not care?

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Property-Is-Theft Movement’s Property Destroyed

    Wait, wait, wait... what?
    Somebody took the property of people who think property is theft...
    And they complain?!

  • Hugh Akston||

    I can't help but chuckle about the people who are agitating for more government intervention into our lives being dispossessed, arrested, and pepper-sprayed by agents of the government. Delicious.

  • ||

    What's insane is that they aren't getting the fundamental disconnect.

  • ||

    Not really. In fact, it's exactly what I expected.

  • ||

    Expected, sure. It's still insane. It doesn't get less so.

  • wareagle||

    for 60K or so, the la-de-da higher ed institution of your choice can teach you that skill, too.

  • ||

    I've got a terminal degree and even worked as an academic, and I can't even begin to understand them.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    ^^THIS^^

    This kind of deluded perspective spread thick through academia is one of the major reasons I left it.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Nope. According to the Occutard narrative, it's the CORPORAYSHUNS that are pulling all of the strings with clearing the encampments.

    The benevolent state is under the complete control of their corporate masters.

  • sed_lon||

    They're not asking for a wholesale increase in government intervention, but an increase in specific areas, using specific kinds of powers. It isn't a disconnect to be outraged at a police state and not suddenly turn into a libertarian. We can believe in the proper role of government without believing that government is everything and should do everything.

    So stop being so silly.

  • Johnny Clamboat||

    Can't tell if you're serious. An excellent Poe.

  • sed_lon||

    I'm being serious. Thanks for the compliment, though. ;-)

  • Southerner||

    My irony meter is reading zero.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Better check the batteries and the connection on the test leads.

  • Leftist Anarchist Douche ||

    Property =/= Possessions

  • ||

    The sets are not congruent, but there is considerable intersection.

  • Juice||

    What?

  • Mr Whipple||

    There's a difference between possessions and property. Ask any anarcho-Socialist. I think, "property" is defined by the state, or something.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's quite simple. They were an anarcho-syndicalist commune in which possessions were collectively owned and assigned to claimants by the Executive Committee based on (a) need, (b) priority of requests, (c) correct political attitude of the requester, (d) not being a watery tart or a reactionary Arthurian monarch.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It's a passed around meme in the Occutard camps.

    See the Daily Show video where one of the Occutards, who wouldn't lend his iPad to the "rabble" in the lower end of Zucotti park says, verbatim mind you, "I'm against private property, not personal property."

    They fundamentally see a difference between them not wanting others to us their iPad and me not wanting others to use my land. It's that kind of stupid that drives them.

    Good riddance, Occutards!

  • sed_lon||

    This isn't a new idea. Since before the founding of this country, the difference between a mobile possession (particularly one which is unnecessary to sustain life) and an immobile one (particularly one which is necessary to sustain life, such as land) has been noted.

  • ||

    Err, those descriptions are different, yes, but is it a difference that makes a difference, and why?

  • sed_lon||

    The general idea is that you can't rightly own property of the latter type without exception. As liberty requires life, and life requires sustenance, a basic respect for rights to life and liberty requires a respect for rights to property--not just to have it protected IF you have it, but to have access to it. The principle, then, is that consolidated ownership of those forms of property constitutes a threat to the protection of life and liberty rights. Or something like that.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Property = a right to your possessions.

    Without the right to property, your possessions can be disposed of without your consent.

  • k2000k||

    Here is what confuses me. The occupy protesters are occupying public space so they don't own it. Why is the article claiming that their property was taken when they are simply squatting on public land?

  • k2000k||

    NM mistook property for land not simply possessions

  • ||

    As you may know, Bloomberg's NYPD destroyed over 5000 books of OccupyWallStreet's library.

    Burning books. Is this what the state's come to?

    Many Reason readers have taken a negative tone about Occupy. But in standing up to the government; and in helping to delineate for the American people the outlines of the modern police state; they have done all libertarians and all Americans a great service.

  • WWNGD?||

    fishfry... are you from the central NY area?

  • ||

    I don't think they've done a damned thing. What the state is willing to do in the name of order is a known quantity. Nothing new here.

    Also, that aside, the movement is a complete laughing stock. They aren't anti-state; they want more of it. Which is why they're facing off against the government? Intellectually empty movement and, frankly, very boring.

  • sed_lon||

    So let me get this straight: If I believe that government has a role--ANY role at all--then I am disqualified from arguing WHAT that role should be, or fighting against a government that is (a) failing to meet that role and/or (b) exceeding that role?

  • Just an Engineer||

    Yes because you don't understand the fundamental prinicple of human behavior that if you give a group of people power over others some of them will always find ways to abuse it.

  • sed_lon||

    I see. So the only two options are 1) anarchism and 2) totalitarianism.

    Sorry, that doesn't work for me.

    The fact that power leads to abuse should be applied everywhere, not just to government. Anyway, the problem is largely that there aren't sufficient checks to government power.

  • sed_lon||

    The point, Just, is that the people on this thread have essentially said that OWS is absolutely statist because it believes the government should be involved at all. It is fallacious to equate an argument that the government should have some power in certain ways with an argument that the government should have all of the power in all of the ways.

    I'm simply asking that people reconsider this fallacy. OWS never said they were anti-state or pro-state--the dichotomy is baloney, anyway, as one can be in favor of state involvement in one area and not in favor of it in another. For instance, one could believe the state has business protecting property rights but not business protecting the environment. Does believing this automatically obligate the person to totalitarian statism? Of course not. The thought is ludicrous, and yet it's being bandeyed about on this thread like its a logically-necessary conclusion.

  • ||

    Actually, they did say they were for more state. They are all for the use of force to take from the 1% to distribute to the "99%". That is where the irony comes from.

    Also, wanting to give the government more control over the economy (more regulation of wall street) is gonna work better than the massive amount of control they have right now how?

  • sed_lon||

    Did they say they were for "more state?" It's this kind of talk which is meaningless, and which I'm arguing against.

    Specifically, I said they weren't "anti-state" or "pro-state," not that they didn't want "more state." On the contrary, they want less state in some areas (such as subsidies, gifts to corporations, tax code favoritism, etc.) and more in others (such as prosecutions of fraudulent bank practices).

    It's more or less impossible (except in extreme cases, such as the difference between a libertarian and a socialist) to determine who wants "more state." More than what? Than we have right now? In what ways?

    Just because they're not libertarians doesn't mean they're statists and that they want the government to control everything. That's my point.

  • sed_lon||

    If we start talking about who's "anti-state" and who's "pro-state," our only options are anarchism and totalitarianism. It reduces the debate to absurdism.

    The point, again, is that it isn't true or meaningful to point out an irony where one doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because the OWS argument has been posed erroneously as a straw man. There's nothing ironic in calling for more government involvement in one area and being abused by excessive government involvement in a completely different area.

    This thread, in short, is little more than the cheerleading zone for a bogus libertarian reductio.

  • ||

    The reduction is in your mind only then. Absent ancaps, most of us agree on having some form of limited government.

    The fact that you ignored where I pointed out the basis for the irony says all it needs to say about you, but I will repeat it one more time.

    When any of the OWS crowd have been able to complete a coherent thought on camera, it's been that the government needs to use force to take from the 1% and give it to the 99% (hence the 99% protest signs and websites). The irony comes from, see if you can follow now, the government using force to take from the protesters.

  • sed_lon||

    I can see the irony. It's like the irony of people clamoring for government to lighten the load on the "job creators" even while they get wealthier and wealthier on outsourcing.

    The problem I have with the ostension of irony on this thread is that it seems to be accompanied by mockery of the OWS people--as if they're getting what they asked for, when clearly they're not.

    But, merely as a matter of irony, yes, it is ironic.

    And, just for the record, I, too, believe in having limited government. I'm not here to defend big government. Just to provide a voice for a group which is taking a beating without any opportunity to defend itself here.

  • Sudden||

    Not really. If anything, in the eyes of a lot of people, they might very well serve to legitimize the use of this level of force by the state because the state is employing such force against such an undesirable gathering.

  • ||

    That was my thought as well. The OWS people are so distasteful that many people will shake off misgivings just because it's them. It's like cops being rough with aggressive bums; everyone hates aggressive buns so much that they just don't care.

  • ||

    The truly astounding part is when I found out just how many cocks I could fit into my anus at once. I had figured it wouldn't be more than two, tops, but in reality, after some muscle relaxers, I was able to handle four (full disclosure: one of them was Asian).

  • tarran||

    Rectal, this one was better. At least you are writing new stuff. But it wasn't plausible and it causes everyone to feel sympathy for Episiarch. I give it a D--.

    Take a couple of hours to get some sleep and try again.

  • ||

    But in standing up to the government;

    They haven't stood up for jack and shit, except for congnative dissonance and a game-show level fan-fed grab-booth of neo-marxist Madlibs.

    They're pissed off about the right things (partly) for all the wrong reasons.

    helping to delineate for the American people the outlines of the modern police state

    And yet, you kids still clamor for an even larger police state as your solution. Call us when you get a clue.

  • everybody panic!||

    Burning books. Is this what the state's come to?

    And all of the books destroyed were rare, single issues, no other surviving copies. That was both the intent and the result you know, to destroy the unique record of an author's thoughts. Oh, the humanity!

  • JohnD||

    I heard most were "The Thoughts of Mao" and the "Communist Manifesto"

  • ||

    You know how many books government employees drop in landfills every year, just because someone left them out next to the street in a blue plastic bin?

    It's just like the Inquisition and the Nazis!

  • mr simple||

    Don't worry, everyone in the occupy camp had one of those books memorized.

  • Nancy Pelosi||

    But in standing up to the government

    ... by demanding more of it -- ?!?

    So, so fucking FAIL.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'm having a hard time squaring with Cav's seemingly forced tone in this article. Of course, if you're in a public park playing volleyball or something the state shouldn't just take your stuff, but if you've been illegitimately occupying and trashing it, then your shit's fair game especially if it's filthy shit.

  • ||

    Does this new legal principle of your apply to any other property?

    Or just property left in parks.

    Somehow I was under the impression that even criminals have rights, and that if you want to deprive someone of their property, you're supposed to use this thing called "due process".

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yeah, true. But if someone leaves their shit all over a park, what process is there? Doesn't the city just own that crap? Your basically right I just don't know what that process would should look like.

  • ||

    They certainly have a right to their property though.

    It's basically like what Cavanaugh's saying though. The lesson there is that your property rights matter, and when the government gets involved, our property often turns into collateral damage.

    Oh, and if they want to look for somebody that's sticking up for their rights, they shouldn't bother looking to the progressives. They should look to us libertarians.

    Apart from us libertarians, there are very few people who care about their rights.

  • Ken Shultz's Mom's Cunt||

    You came out of me.

  • ||

    Either vile trolls love to use that word because it's especially offensive, or it's not a particularly offensive word at all...

    But can it really be both?

  • K__ S_____'s Mom's Cunt||

    Offensive portion(s) redacted.

  • JohnD||

    You people are pathetic. They were illegally occuping the parks. They were told to remove their possessions and leave, and they didn't. Tough shit.

  • ||

    That's an excellent universal system of government, right there?

    Do what you're told, or the government will take your shit?

  • ||

    They had the explicit consent of the government to use the park. Until the government officials saw that public opinion was waning and decided to turn against them. Either way, the government shouldn't just be going in and taking people's shit (at the least they should not be destroying it and allowing people to claim their belongings).

  • ||

    No one's depriving them of their property. Look up "abandoned property" before offering your legal opinion. Hint: you don't have any due process rights in regard to property you abandon on land you don't own.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Kill yourself Tulpa||

    Tulpa makes an ass of itself being demonstrably wrong again

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yeah, but the public park is not a storage facility/living space.

  • LarryA||

    Hint: you don't have any due process rights in regard to property you abandon on land you don't own.

    There's a bit of difference between voluntarily walking off and leaving your gear in a public place, and police chasing you away from your gear with pepper spray, etc.

  • ||

    so let me get this straight, after millions of dollars are spent babysitting these assdouches, we are to spend more money safely storing property (that they were told to take with them or file paperwork so they can retrieve said property later and they did neither)?
    walk it!

  • ||

    "When the people were advised to leave, they were advised to take their property with them. If they don’t take their property, it’s booked as found property."

    Finders keepers, losers weepers!

    Isn't that in the Declaration of Independence somewhere?

    I thought everybody learned about that--at least that's what they taught Tenisha in statist cop school!

    Introduction to Being a Cop, Chapter 6 it titled "All your base are belong to us."

    Seriously, all you OWS people, there's this thing called libertarianism. Y'all should check it out sometime.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It doesn't involve collectivist economics. They could give a shit.

  • ||

    Still, they should check it out.

    Wanna see somebody stand up for the rights of people they don't agree with?

    Look to the libertarians.

    The OWS people should really take notice. From New York to Quan in Oakland, from Sacramento to Seattle...

    It was Democrats and Progressives who were forcibly removing the Occupy people--and it was libertarians complaining about Democrats and Progressives violating the Occupy people's rights.

    Some of them will notice.

  • wareagle||

    they could give a shit about your rights. They care mightily about free stuff and if your money can pay for it, then they care about you. And frankly, not all libertarians were defending these folks. There are those who believe that civil society has rules and that free camping on someone else's land is not a basic right.

    They had plenty of opportunity to assemble, to speak, to protest, to do whatever people do when upset with govt. But, that was not enough. Aided by the loony left, they became emboldened at each refusal of govt officials to do their jobs. They willingly infringed on the rights of others and wound up costing taxpayers an unexpected bundle to boot. Sorry they lost their stuff but it's not like they were not asked repeatedly to clear out of space that DID NOT BELONG TO THEM. I see you concerned about the rights of OWS being violated but not so much about OWS violating the rights of others.

  • ||

    "they could give a shit about your rights."

    They should care about their own rights though.

    And that's what I'm talking about too! I'm not really sticking up for their rights per se--it's my right not to have my stuff arbitrarily confiscated by the government that I'm really sticking up for.

  • JohnD||

    Then don't leave your stuff laying around in a public park after you are told to remove it. Moron.

  • ||

    Well obviously if the police say you have to leave, that means they get all of your stuff...

    Everybody know that--it's in the 3rd and a Half Amendment somewhere!

    Oh, and name calling means you lose.

  • Apatheist||

    I bet they won't check it out because we use the word cunt too much.

  • Mensan||

    "Some of them will notice."

    Breath holding contest ... ready, set, GO!

  • ||

    None of always knew what we know now.

    libertarians don't grow on trees. A lot of times, they just see the government screw people over and it wakes them up.

    I don't think that's pie in the sky. That's the way it really happens.

  • ||

    Just like the fucking Arab Street loves us after kinetically leading rearward in Libya, right Ken?

    Just how much of your approach to public policy is geared toward making people like you?

  • ||

    libertarians would be removing them too

    they are unlawfully camping on land not their own

    i am reasonably confident if ron paul was president, and the LA and NY mayors were members of his party, that enforcement action would still be taken against squatters

  • ||

    Are you averring that some people at Reason are not consistent in their libertarianism?

  • ||

    ya think?

    example... paul schene. i said he was guilty from the beginning, that he should be fired and criminally tried.

    he was ... and tried TWICE.

    hung juries both times. THAT is due process.

    a reasonoid anti-cop bigot said they should keep prosecuting until he was found guilty or acquitted

    THAT is due process?

    riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

    it was a fucking misdemeanor. retry once? ok (although relatively rare in misdemeanors.)

    but to retry TWICE iow try it three times?

    but that's what the bigot wanted. because he's a cop. different rules of due process would apply.

    cause cops r evul lol

    like a libertarian would OTHERWISE support trying a guy a THIRD time for the same misdemeanor offense?

    there is no consistency. there is with balko imo, but not with the bigots

  • ||

    Can't they prosecute people as many times as they wish if they keep getting mistrials? That's not a due process violation. Stupid, perhaps, but not a violation.

  • ||

    it most definitely IS a due process violation, if it can be shown to be arbitrary or punitive as to process.

    as a matter of practice it most definitely IS punitive, considering the substantial cost of each new trial.

    and considering that govt. does NOT do that with OTHER misdemeanors (fwiw, the lawyer from my union said that he could fine no other example EVER in WA history of somebody being tried a third time for a misdemeanor after two hung juries), it's pretty much an easy case to make

    it's similar to a case where a guy pisses off a cop and the cop writes him a ticket for 1 mph over the speed limit

    an attorney would subpoena all the cops' ticket history

    lets say he's written 3000 tickets in 15 yrs, and 2500 are for speeding

    if the lawyer can show that the cop singled out his client for "1 mile over" as a punitive measure, iow that out of 2500 tickets, the cops never ticketed anybody else for 1 mph over... that's an EASY harassment case.

    it's a fucking slam dunk

    regardless of these legal niceties, the point was if the prosecutor did this to anybody else, this reasonoid bigot would be screaming about how it's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, etc. but SINCE the defendant is a cop, it was what he thought the prosecutor should do.

  • sed_lon||

    Funny thing--socialists, communists, and some neo-nazis were complaining about OWS's rights being violated. What's your point?

  • Zeb||

    Occasionally people do change their minds. A lot of young people are leftists without putting a lot of thought in to it.

  • ||

    I have no sympathies towards the jackass mayor and city council but don't get this blog's sympathies for these cretins that are taking over public space and making life a little more miserable for people just trying to get to work and make a living.

    Jesus christ, cry me a river because some dumbass set up camp in the middle of the city and then when finally forced to leave, forgot his precious book or bong or whatever.

    Hit and Run is falling for the same kind of faux outrage that has people now seeking therapy because their delicate constitutions can't handle the horrors of being arrested or pepper sprayed. Grow some goddamn balls and while you're at it just grow up people.

  • ||

    "I have no sympathies towards the jackass mayor and city council but don't get this blog's sympathies for these cretins that are taking over public space and making life a little more miserable for people just trying to get to work and make a living."

    Oh, it's real simple.

    Turns out that other people's rights aren't a popularity contest.

    That's basically it.

  • ||

    However, Occupy Episiarch's Rectum most assuredly IS a popularity contest.

  • ||

    They had pleanty of warning, pleanty of time to move their stuff. They had at least a 24 hour notice that the police were coming to remove them. They apparently didn't want their stuff. All they really wanted was to get arrested. Yahoo, they succeded. Too bad they aren't still in jail.

  • ||

    I remember the part about how you can't be deprived of your property without due process of law.

    Don't remember the part about how that goes out the window if the owners are scumbags and the cops told them to get out.

  • Sevo||

    You must have also missed the part about 'Congress shall make no law, except after business hours' or something.
    The property of scumbags is their property, *even* if they swear property is evil.

  • ||

    Damn straight.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But if they leave that property at an encampment they had no business setting up, is it their property anymore?

  • Sevo||

    If you wallet falls out of your pocket, is it your property?

  • ||

    There's a difference between accidentally losing property and intentionally setting it up where you have no right to keep it.

    If the government has to put anything you leave in the park in storage for you for whenever you decide you want it back, then why the hell does anyone pay for storage? Just put that extra bed frame in the park and the taxpayers will pay for it.

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 9:18PM|#
    "There's a difference between accidentally losing property and intentionally setting it up where you have no right to keep it."

    So if I intentionally drop a Jackson on the bar, you get to pick it up?

  • ||

    If you *intentionally* leave money laying around, then yes. Generally people don't do this so the presumption should be that if you see money laying around it was lost, not abandoned.

    If you're talking about leaving a tip, that's different, because the expectation is that money left on a table when a customer leaves, or in a jar on the bar, or whatever, is intended for the server or bartender.

  • ||

    If I'm robbing your house, and I drop my wedding ring in your living room on the way out the door, does that mean it's yours now?

    I don't think so. If I leave something that belongs to me behind, you might have a right to damages, but I don't lose my right to due process.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yup that ring is mine.

  • ||

    Actually, convicted criminals have property rights too.

  • ||

    You must have also missed the part about 'Congress shall make no law, except after business hours' or something.

    Do you even know what the amendment says after "law"? Because you keep cutting it off there.

    What part of the amendment are you referring to as giving the right to store your belongings on public property.

  • Sevo||

    "Do you even know what the amendment says after "law"? Because you keep cutting it off there."

    Don't hand out that crap.

  • ||

    I remember the part about how you can't be deprived of your property without due process of law.

    That's regarding *seizure* of property, not disposal of abandoned property. When you abandon property you deprive yourself of it, it's not the state's doing.

  • ||

    "I have no sympathies towards the jackass mayor and city council but don't get this blog's sympathies for these cretins that are taking over public space and making life a little more miserable for people just trying to get to work and make a living."

    Just for the record...'cause a lotta people don't get this...

    I don't think much of pornographers or people who squander their lives stoned playing on the Xbox. ...but when I stand up for the rights of pornographers and slackers?

    It's isn't their rights I'm standing up for--it's mine.

    Pornographers right to express themselves freely--that's my right too. ...and I don't want to see my right to express myself circumscribed just because some pornographer is a scumbag.

    It works that way with scumbag commie protestors too. Their right not to have their property confiscated arbitrarily? That's my right too. And I don't want to see my right not to have my property confiscated arbitrarily circumscribed just because the Occupy people are commie scumbags.

    Their rights. My rights. It's all the same thing.

  • ||

    Does that include my right to sleep with as many AIDS-infected African-American men in a single night as I wish?

    Because that's the right I'm most in favor of preserving.

  • Sevo||

    Spoof, but yes.
    You're welcome to 'sleep with' anyone you please, but don't come whining.
    Oh, and why "African American"? Do you think AIDs is somehow more contagious if it infects blacks? You have a new theory here?

  • ||

    Not more contagious, just more likely for them to be infected. They have a much higher per-capita infection rate than whites, at least according to the last studies I saw, which admittedly was quite awhile ago.

  • Sevo||

    Uh,
    "...with as many AIDS-infected African-American men..."
    So if you slept with as many AIDS-infected Asian men, you'd be better off?

  • shorter Ken Shultz||

    I am a pornographer.

  • Ken Schultz's Director||

    No he's just an actor. He plays twink #3 in my upcoming film Put it in My Mancunt 5

  • ||

    Their rights. My rights. It's all the same thing.

    Summed up nicely.

  • wareagle||

    jesus on a stick, ken. Porno makers are not demanding to use your house as a set and x-box junkies do not believe they are entitled to your refrigerator and bathroom. OWS' rights WERE upheld, the rights to free speech and assembly. They also violated the rights of others, cost their respective cities a hell of a lot of unanticipated money, and flaunted a total disrespect of decency and public rules.

    Their property did not belong where it was in the first place as there was no right to taking over property that was not theirs. Like all previous protesters, they were free to show up, demonstrate, make their case, then leave. They chose a takeover. Ironically, they lost their property at the hands of the same state they wish were even more powerful in terms of taking away your property.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Ken, what right was violated here? If you have your chattel on someone else's land, I fail to see how you can assert your chattel rights when you fail to take that chattel with you. If I kick you out of my house and tell you to take your jacket with you, and you don't...it's my jacket.

  • ||

    "If I kick you out of my house and tell you to take your jacket with you, and you don't...it's my jacket."

    That's baloney.

  • Ray Ray||

    You are being dense. If one has a right to always reclaim abandoned property, then OTHERS are FORCED to take on a DUTY of storing your property. You leave your jacket at my house, it's mine. Tough shit. You did not put a deposit on it. You did not pay me to hold onto it for you. It's no longer in your possession. Shoulda remembered your jacket.

  • mr simple||

    You mad, bro?

    You leave your jacket at my house, it's mine. Tough shit.

    Is that what you tell your mom when she leaves stuff at your house?

  • sed_lon||

    There are proper terms and conditions to this kind of transfer of ownership. If you tell someone to take their jacket and they're in a position to take it, but they refuse (not merely forget) to take it, then you can claim it. If you don't want it, you can throw it out on your lawn where it will get ruined by the weather, or throw it away, and so on. But if someone merely FORGOT their jacket, you have no right to destroy it until you've notified them and given them fair opportunity to pick it up. This doesn't mean sending them a text to pick up their jacket in 10 minutes or it's going in the trash. The rules change a bit if the object is imposing upon you in some way--but still don't necessarily permit you to assume ownership of the property in question. For example, if instead of a jacket, someone left their car parked behind yours in your driveway and you need to get to work. As opposed to a jacket, which may easily be stored for the duration of time necessary to provide the owner with a fair opportunity to reclaim it, that car's gotta be moved, and soon. You're justified in having it towed at the owner's expense.

  • ||

    You'd have a point if they were occupying private property.

  • ||

    Why are we reading something that was written by a Canadian ( Quebec Chronical-Telegraph) complaining about something happening here in S. Calif.? How about if we send all these troublemakers to Canada?

  • ||

    Is it safe to say that you would not be...unresponsive, were I to proposition you?

  • ||

    The Occupy people keep saying they represent the 99%. Bull crap. They represent themselves. They say that the 1% controls all the money and power. The 1% might control the money and the power but there is a large percentage that does not fit in either one of those numbers. We are happy with our station in life, we are called the middle class.

  • ||

    It was a completely tone deaf and idiotic slogan from day one. They don't represent me, but I'm not in any 1% bracket. It also totally ignores that the rich(er) already carry a huge share of the tax burden.

    That kind of dishonest arrogance really fails. They thought they'd get people to join into their whinefest. Wrong again, losers.

  • ||

    I'll bet you $10 that if you blow your load in my mouth, I'll be able to tell what you ate earlier that day.

  • ||

    On the off chance that you're being serious, I would like to take you up on that bet.

  • ||

    How rude.

  • Leftist Anarchist Douche ||

    Petty Bourgeoisie!

  • sed_lon||

    I suppose you could say, "We are happy with our station in life, we are called the complacent."

    The failure of the middle class to take an interest in these sort of things seems rarely political, and much more often is merely a product of the laziness they so ironically like to hoist on the shoulders of anyone who poses a threat to their comfort.

  • Sevo||

    "Property-Is-Theft Movement’s Property Destroyed"

    Be careful what you wish for....

  • ||

    You've got bottles of urine, that's the biggest hazard in there

    If they have OO (O2/O3/O4) trapped in various bottles, for the love of FSM, please keep it in there.

  • ||

    Is it irony if the *police* are espousing an "its legal if you don't get caught" philosophy.

  • ||

    Well since Epi (and maybe ProL?) are coming out of the closet here tonight, I guess I'd better throw my hat into the ring as well.

    And by "hat" I mean my uncut penis, and by "ring" I mean cock-ring.

  • ||

    Vile troll.

  • oncogenesis||

    the Flea Party

    I thought we had settled on "Freebaggers".

  • ||

    As libertarians, we argue strongly for the right of people to own property.

    If we don't stand up for that right, even for people who dispute it, our espousal of that right is hypocritical lip service.

  • ||

    Absolutely.

  • Sevo||

    Yep.
    The property of scumbags claiming property is evil is as much protected as the property of, oh, Warren Buffet.
    Or *should* be.

  • ||

    Do we stand up for the right of people to dump their private property on public land with the expectation that the taxpayers will pay for storing it until they decide they want it back?

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 9:11PM|#
    "Do we stand up for the right of people ...."

    See below.

  • ||

    There you go with the ellipsis again!

    So you think people do have a right to free storage on public property? Sweet! I have a bunch of extra chairs cluttering up my place.

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 9:39PM|#
    "There you go with the ellipsis again!

    So you think people do have a right to free storage on public property? Sweet! I have a bunch of extra chairs cluttering up my place."

    Truly infantile.

  • wareagle||

    first, we must presume that said people actually have a "right" to do whatever it is that may need defending. Using someone else's property indefinitely without compensation is not on the list of rights in any civil society.

  • ||

    Our rights often overlap and conflict with each other. Sorting that out is one of the few legitimate functions of government.

    They may or may not have the right to protest there indefinitely, but they certainly have a right to protest. Let's not pretend they don't.

    And sorting overlapping and conflicting rights out isn't a winner take all process. And if they didn't have a right to be there, and the cops were right to kick them out? That doesn't mean they don't have a right to their stuff.

  • Ray Ray||

    Omg. Libertarians are unique in the fact that they tend to realize rights NEVER overlap each other. Seriously. Abortion? Can you survive without your mommy's womb? Then while everybody has a right to live, an unborn child does not have a right to use its mother as life support. Disabled? You have a right to access public places. Private property owners should not have to make "access" easy for you. Basically, you have a right to do anything as long as it does not force someone else to do something. That's. It. You have a right to your stuff. You do not have a right to make someone hold onto it for you until you are ready for it. Rights. Never. Overlap. They don't. Sorry. That's a lie.

  • ||

    "Omg. Libertarians are unique in the fact that they tend to realize rights NEVER overlap each other."

    That's absurd.

    This goes all the way back to Adam Smith.

    As Adam Smith had it, if a cinder from your neighbor's chimney falls on your shirt, while you're standing on your property, who's responsibility is it to pay the cleaning bill?

    While it was definitely your neighbor's cinder and it definitely fell on your shirt, doesn't your neighbor have a right to burn coal in his own house to keep warm?

    It certainly seemed so to Adam Smith--in his day, having a place to keep warm and burn coal was what a home was practically for.

    Smith thought sorting through those overlapping and conflicting rights was a legitimate function of government--and that's what this libertarian thinks too.

    Just because I have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of my house--doesn't mean my next door neighbor doesn't have a right to keep a dog in his backyard--even if it barks sometimes so I can hear it.

    We both have rights. Our rights overlap. And conflict.

    Smith argued that the solutions to such conflicts people adapt between themselves are infinitely more complicated and effective than any solution the government could possibly inflict from above--but that doesn't mean the government doesn't have a legitimate role to play as the arbiter of such conflicts...when our rights overlap and conflict with each other.

    Just because other people have a right to use those parks? That doesn't mean the occupy people don't have a right to protest there too.

    Our rights are not a zero sum game, and they're not a game of winner take all either.

  • robc||

    Rights never overlap.

    When they do, you have misinterpreted one of the rights.

  • ||

    So which right wins?

    Are you saying that people don't have a right to keep a dog in their back yards--because someone else might hear it?

    Or are you saying that people don't have a right to enjoy the quiet of their own homes?

    I'm saying they have both rights.

    Which right are you saying doesn't exist?

  • Negative Rights||

    We only exist in your mind

  • ||

    So the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is just a myth?

    How 'bout the right not to be compelled to testify against myself?

    The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments?

    That's off the top of my head!

  • sed_lon||

    Ken--

    Just a clap of the hands: Thank you for being probably the FIRST libertarian I've ever read who admits openly that rights overlap.

    While I don't necessarily think that perfect rights in perfect conception overlap, I don't think that the response to your argument is best summed-up by "When [rights overlap], you have misinterpreted one of the rights." The interaction of individuals and the system of rights that governs such interactions is complex enough that a non-overlapping perspective of rights, even if ultimately true, is useless and even harmful, as we will never be able to isolate that perspective. Your examples have illustrated the need for arbitration (whether by government or individuals), rather than bullheaded adherence to over-simplistic principles.

  • robc||

    Public land is a violation of people's rights.

    Get rid of it and the problem becomes clearer.

  • ||

    Public land is a violation of people's rights.

    How so? Isn't "public" land merely the property rights of individuals held under the organization of whichever entity holds title? If the City of NY holds title to a park, isn't that merely the association of individuals that make up residents of the City?

    If a group of people can organize themselves into a family, or a corporation, or a book club and hold property, why can they not hold property when organized as a City or County or Nation?

  • Vermin Control||

    I can't help this.

  • ||

    If we don't stand up for that right, even for people who dispute it, our espousal of that right is hypocritical lip service.

    It's the people who don't understand this who make me nervous. People don't deserve rights just because they vote the same way you do. They have rights because they're people, full stop. Ignoring the rights of occupiers is the path to totalitarianism.

  • ||

    Giving squatting protesters special rights is also a path to totalitarianism.

    So if I don't have room in my house for all my bookshelves, can I just drop it off at Schenley Park and expect the city to put it in storage for me? No? Then why do the fleabaggers have that right?

  • robc||

    Public parks dont exist under natural law so we cant say what the natural law rule is in this case. Their mere existence is the core of the problem.

  • sed_lon||

    There's a LOT of stuff that doesn't exist under "natural law" (whatever that means). So what?

  • sed_lon||

    Natural law is "survival of the fittest," not "everybody respect everyone else's rights." Respecting rights is a compromise, and it requires an assertion that rights exist above and beyond the dictates of might. If we gather together to make EVERYONE "the fittest," then we can certainly create public parks. Each is a violation (or an expression, if you will) of a distant natural state which we left behind long ago.

  • sed_lon||

    There's nothing soft and cuddly or libertarian about nature. Nature is brutal. Society is a softening agent. You can't have a libertarian society without accepting "society" and leaving "nature" far behind.

  • ||

    Please explain what exactly the city was supposed to do with all that crap. Put it in storage until someone claimed it? Leave it where it was, cluttering up the park?

    Like OWS, you seem long on complaints and short on solutions.

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 9:05PM|#
    "Please explain what exactly the city was supposed to do with all that crap. Put it in storage until someone claimed it?"

    OK, easy.
    That's what the city governments do with bums' property.

  • ||

    So you think taxpayers should pay for storage for this bunch of entitled twats, and presumably for anyone else who decides to leave their extra stuff in the park.

    So much for getting government spending under control.

  • Sevo||

    See below; answered.

  • ||

    See below; that was an unacceptable answer.

  • Sevo||

    Goodie for you.
    I see you are getting confused and can't find a way to dispute the comments.

  • David Hester||

    I'm not bidding on that shit

  • ||

    But my friends call me Tsunami "Make Shit Up and Hope No One Notices" Tulpa.

  • Sevo||

    eb|12.5.11 @ 8:35PM|#
    "I have no sympathies towards the jackass mayor and city council but don't get this blog's sympathies for these cretins that are taking over public space and making life a little more miserable for people just trying to get to work and make a living...."

    Amendments to the Constitution of The United States of America
    Amendment 1.
    Congress shall make no law....

    See that? I thought you could.

  • Sandtiger||

    So are you suggesting that I have the right to find a public park, and sleep there and make it my home for as long as I want?

  • Sevo||

    Sandtiger|12.5.11 @ 9:07PM|#
    "So are you suggesting that I have the right to find a public park, and sleep there and make it my home for as long as I want?

    The more I think about it, the more I say: YES!
    We have groups of people with a sort of an un-focused 'I don't like things' message, and that message is more or less predicted by Thatcher's famous 'running out of other peoples' money' quip. They're pissed since the freebies are disappearing.
    The message is not only un-focused, it's vile; it presumes that the world owes the occupiers a living (or at least a forgiveness for their student loans).
    The solution to vile speech is other speech, hence A-1. And that will come about as a result of that vile speech.
    What I really see here, and it's not yet popularly visible is a classic 'tragedy of the commons'. These folks are over-grazing the commons with *their* speech to the detriment of those who chose to speak otherwise.
    There are two possible solutions, respecting A-1:
    1) Others 'take over' the 'commons' with their message.
    2) We realize that the commons are a bad idea and the parks become far more pleasant when they are privatized.

  • ||

    "think" is probably the wrong word for what you're doing.

  • Sevo||

    OK, let's see an actual counter-argument. I'll listen.

  • ||

    you are joking right?

    nobody is disputing OWS' right to protest

    otoh, they have no right to camp in the location they did

    had a not unsimilar case . guy had an old trailer he was renovating. hadn't been there in months (out of state owner)

    some sprackers had taken up using it as a drug house. there was all kinds of crap left in the house - drug paraphernalia, luggage, clothes, etc.

    they called the cops, because there was also a gun (turned out to be stolen)

    i took the gun and placed it into evidence

    as for the rest of the ABANDONED PROPERTY. i told the property to dispose of it however he felt fit

    i am pretty sure if the asshole trespasser sprackers tried to make some property claim to the stuff the guy threw out, they would lose

  • Sevo||

    dunphy|12.5.11 @ 9:38PM|#
    Statement #1: nobody is disputing OWS' right to protest

    Stement #2: otoh, they have no right to camp in the location they did

    Really? Does speech end at, oh, 5PM?

  • ||

    Sleeping is not speech.

  • ||

    word. setting up camps, with tents etc. was the issue. speech wasn't

    and of course there can be reasonable TIME PLACE MANNER restrictions on speech.

    but that wasn't the issue here.

    and of COURSE OWS was given a double standard anyway. if a bunch of white supremacist assholes had set up a CAMP there, do you think the mayor would come out "supporting their " right to protest AND camp?

    of course not

    but OWS , by many mayors was given a pass on their lawbreaking based on their MESSAGE

    govt. speech laws and govt. actions must be NEUTRAL as to content of speech.

    *if* the OWS'ers could show the govt. in the past let OTHER protesters create campsites, they might have an argument

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 9:45PM|#
    "Sleeping is not speech."

    So if a protester is sleeping, all bets are off?
    "Congress shall make no law, unless the speaker is asleep"
    My copy doesn't read that way.

  • ||

    You might want to cut the prozacs in half next time, sevo.

  • ||

    I don't think you're a troll, just an overzealous dogmatic sort, but it still embarrasses me to have to explain that in order to be protected by the freedom of speech, you have to be at least communicating or attempting to communicate in some way RIGHT NOW. The fact that you have spoken at some point in your life does not therefore mean you can do whatever you please and the govt can't stop you forever after.

  • ||

    people can protest in any park they damn well please.

    in the county and city i live in, most public parks close at midnight

    if you are protesting at 2 am, you can be removed, and even cited or arrested

    that's not an imposition on your right to free speech either.

    it's a content neutral restriction on EVERYBODY not to be in the park after sunset

    same principle

  • ||

    ugh, mean sunset, not "midnight"

  • ||

    camping is not an inherently expressive activity and placing restrictions on same

    AS LONG AS DONE IN A CONTENT NEUTRAL MANNER

    is not violative of the 1st amendment

    if the govt. said 'dirty hippies and OWS types may not camp, but those with respectable republican cloth coats may camp with impunity"

    that would be an issue

    if they say "nobody can camp" that is not

    hth

  • ||

    Actually they made Tea Partiers pay for waste removal etc and didn't let them camp in the parks, so it appears the content wasn't neutral.

  • ||

    of course. that's because they did NOT agree with the tea partiers' message

    this is a critical issue that reason and most others are missing

    many liberal mayors and councils have come out openly and said "we support your MESSAGE"

    ok, a mayor can agree with certain speech and not other certain speech... but

    when it's clear they are offering special privileges to the OWS'ers BECAUSE they agree with their message, that is

    UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    if they don't extend that privilege to people they disagree with

    so when the (insert rightwing group here) protesters do a similar protest and camp, and the mayors IMMEDIATELY evict them (vs. letting them dick around for more than a month and publically state they are not going to enforce anti-camping regs) the mayors will have a lot of 'splaining to do as to why OWS got free passes for a month and (insert rightwing group here) did not

    all these assmunch mayors have now "opened the door" for OTHER groups to demand their "one month camp without consequences" card

    it was a fucking stupid mistake

    it was one thing to ignore them

    it was another to not only ignore the lawbreaking, but to publically state your sympathy with your cause and that you were thus choosing not to enforce the law against THEM because you like their message

    a serious fuckup

    not that equality under the law means jackshit to "progressives" of course

  • wareagle||

    commandeering someone else's property is not speech and there is no right to it. Do you similarly support their "right" to camp out on front lawn indefinitely? Please. No one EVER said they should not be allowed to protest. If anything, cities bent over backwards to ensure that right, to the point that cities allowed the rights of others to be violated. Usually, that is the point at which one person's rights end, when the exercise thereof infringes on teh rights of others.

  • ||

    Explain which part of the first amendment you think allows people to live in a park for months on end. None of this sentence fragment bullshit. You want to be a literalist, point to the letters.

  • Ray Ray||

    But, Congress shall make no law, Tulpa. The fragment explains it all. Free speech and shit.

  • ||

    So if I show up at Times Square and throw myself a ticker tape parade complete with ticker tape, and continue doing so until enough people complain and I'm arrested, the police should bag and tag all of my ticker tape that I still consider my property?

    If I walk into Target and take a crap in the middle of the Women's swimsuit department and claim my crap as my property, do the arresting officers have the duty to properly process my property and ensure that it is not damaged in storage?

    Seems to me that people are hung up on details that have nothing to do with the real application of the law.

  • Sevo||

    "Seems to me that people are hung up on details that have nothing to do with the real application of the law."

    The details *are* the law.

  • ||

    OK Mr Details, who pays for the storage for all this crud?

  • Sevo||

    Same folks who pay for bums' property storage (taxpayers), but in this case, (seems like these folks aren't destitute) there should be cost-recovery on release.

  • ||

    Bzzt. You can't justify one illegitimate expenditure by simply citing another.

    That's as bad as Shultz justifying Libya by saying it wasn't as bad as Iraq.

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 9:35PM|#
    "Bzzt. You can't justify one illegitimate expenditure by simply citing another."

    Bzzzt.
    Nice try, but begging the question doesn't work.

  • ||

    You're begging the question, not me.

  • Sevo||

    fail

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Sevo, it is a real shame that you are so confident you are right when you are dead wrong. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for storage, ergo immediate disposal is an active refraining from imposing even more costs on the taxpayer, and is therefore moral.

  • sed_lon||

    Yeah, it's kind of silly to say that taxpayers should pay for storage and we should recoup expenses on release. What if there is no release? Over time, the indefinite storage of anything and everything (which would include, of course, discarded beverage cups, candy wrappers, etc.--after all, no due process has been engaged in to determine whether the person who owns it no longer claims it) would become more of a burden than the taxpayers could handle.

    If we're to assume that people automatically claim everything they leave in public places, then we shouldn't store it UNTIL they pay a fee to get it back; we should fine them for leaving it where it is.

    Ownership comes with responsibilities, not just rights.

  • ||

    I am....the 3.125 *10^-9 percent. Fuck them.

  • ||

    Giving squatting protesters special rights is also a path to totalitarianism.

    So if I don't have room in my house for all my bookshelves, can I just drop it off at Schenley Park and expect the city to put it in storage for me? No? Then why do the fleabaggers have that right?

    If some group of indigents sets up camp in my front lawn, I don't think anyone here would argue with my right to raze it. This is not my front lawn though, it's a public park. In any other circumstance, the city would hold on to "found" property for some period before disposing of it. Since I'm thirsty, I'll go ahead and say I don't think this is unREASONable.

  • Sevo||

    MS, see above:
    "What I really see here, and it's not yet popularly visible is a classic 'tragedy of the commons'. These folks are over-grazing the commons with *their* speech to the detriment of those who chose to speak otherwise."

  • ||

    Parks aren't commons. They're owned by the city/county and managed by that jurisdiction's government.

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 9:33PM|#
    "Parks aren't commons. They're owned by the city/county and managed by that jurisdiction's government."

    Uh, Tony, is that you?
    What?
    WIH do you think the commons are?

  • ||

    Lakes, rivers, etc. There are minimal commons in the US, which is a good thing, as I would expect a purported libertarian to know of the tragedy thereof.

  • Sevo||

    And I'll bet those cows had a hard time over-grazing lakes and rivers.

  • ||

    We were talking about the present. Hence the "are".

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 9:52PM|#
    "We were talking about the present. Hence the "are"."

    Which schools offer a degree in Solipsism?

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Which schools offer a degree in Solipsism?

    Seeing as how that makes absolutely no sense in context, I can only conclude that you are throwing around "fancy" terms you do not understand.

  • Mensan||

    Parks aren't commons?

  • wareagle||

    and the Dead Sea is technically a lake. A public park does not mean one segment of the public commandeers it to the exclusion of everyone else.

  • ||

    You know how many strip malls are named "Commons"?

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 10:06PM|#
    "You know how many strip malls are named "Commons"?"

    You know how many laws are named "Freedom"?
    I thought you had some sense, but I'm beginning to have doubts.

  • ||

    A public park is someone else's property. It's not a commons, it's managed by the government on behalf of the community, and (subject to constitutional and legal restrictions) the govt calls the shots about how that property gets used.

    An individual citizen can't show up one day and lay asphalt on a flat grassy area in the park just because he wants to turn it into a basketball court. If your claim that it's not someone else's property were true, then that WOULD be allowed.

    In any other circumstance, the city would hold on to "found" property for some period before disposing of it.

    Not large bulky stuff that was obviously placed there intentionally and abandoned. A wallet is one thing, a bookshelf quite another.

  • ||

    a public park IS the commons.

    it does not therefore follow that the govt. cannot prohibit camping in that commons

  • ||

    If it were the commons people could do what they wanted there without govt interference.

  • ||

    i think we have a different definition

    on the east coast, we have many commons. they go all the way back to the revolutionary war era

    such as... wait for it... boston commons

    these are open to any member of the public. hence, the commons

    however, people cannot do whatever they want on them

    i see you mean the more general "the commons" as in...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons

    that's nice, but it is still not the case that you can do whatever you want in the commons

    you cannot dump a bunch of radioactive waste in the commons

    you cannot set up a massive sound system like the who uses, such that other people are unduly disturbed in their use of the commons

    regardless, we are talking about public parks, etc. which have all sorts of regulation

    the issue is - ARE THE REGULATIONS content neutral as to speech?

    if so, they are constitutional, unless they are somehow else violative... and if so... HOW?

    a law prohibiting amplified speech is constitutional...

    a law prohibited amplified speech by dirty hippies is not

  • ||

    I also note that you didn't answer my question about the possibility of saving money by leaving my furniture in the park.

    I could use the savings, so please give some advice there.

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 9:37PM|#
    "I also note that you didn't answer my question about the possibility of saving money by leaving my furniture in the park."

    Sorry, I seem to have missed that particular sophistry.

  • Juice||

    I love how the city endorsed them and then a few weeks later got tired of it and just said fuck it, tear that shit down. What a bunch of fickle asshats.

  • ||

    especially true in oakland from mayor quan.

    invite them to stay, tell them you support their message... THEN kick them out

    lol

  • troll appreciator||

    "invite them to stay, tell them you support their message... THEN kick them out"

    I luv that about Oakland.

  • ||

    What I really see here, and it's not yet popularly visible is a classic 'tragedy of the commons'. These folks are over-grazing the commons with *their* speech to the detriment of those who chose to speak otherwise.

    I agree with that, Sevo. The obvious solution is for the city to divest itself of public parks, but that ain't never going to happen.

  • ||

    Not large bulky stuff that was obviously placed there intentionally and abandoned. A wallet is one thing, a bookshelf quite another.

    If the occupiers are told, "you have 24 hours to get your shit and leave" you can argue that they abandoned anything still in the park. But it's my understanding that the eviction was a surprise. If I go set up camp for a weekend in a national forest, and then some rangers come along and make me leave without allowing me to take my tent, that's theft.

  • ||

    the time of the eviction may have been a surprise

    the fact that the govt. had informed them that they were trespassing and would be evicted, is the operative part though

  • ||

    It might have been a surprise that the city actually had the balls to kick them out after the deadline passed, but the deadline itself was not a surprise. They were given two days notice.

  • ||

    your all missing the ultimate point.

    fwiw the point is, you CAN run a tube directly from your anus to your mouth, so that you can eat your own feces.

    after a lot of trial and error, I would recommend a transparent tube, so that you can masturbate while you watch the brown goodness creep through the tube towards your waiting mouth.

  • ||

    +10 me!

  • penny||

    I'm 35 ,rich but still single.It's hard to get a boyfriend in my town ,most of them like my

    money more than like me.I just want to find my true love.so i uploaded my hot photos on

    successfulmingle.com under the name of sexyjenny. a nice and free place for younger men and

    mature women, to interact with each other..if you guys see this comment,i hope you will

    check my photos out there.maybe you are the one who i'm looking for

  • Okay, I'll bite...||

    E-mail me a blowjob and we'll take it from there.

  • Scott, the Giant Dick||

    Damn Native Canadian snowgooks. I once paid an Eskimo woman to give me a blowjob and she just rubbed her nose against my penis for 20 seconds and demanded I give her $50.

  • Pervert||

    I'm going to try that with my wife tonight. Sounds kinky.

  • chris||

    Works well if she has Vick's Mentholated Rub dabbed on her nose.

  • Commentator ||

    ouch?

  • chris||

    If you have never had a gal blow coke off your cock before you might not have the right conditioning to try it. Do the later first several times, and then you'll be fine.

  • Commentator ||

    Do you speak Hungarian? Can you open a jar of olives with your toes? If given a paperclip, a penny, and a rubber band would you be able to remove yourself from a set of handcuffs?

  • chris||

    Penny, I would not recommend on-line dating. You are in for a world of hurt (not the good kind) and misrepresentation. If you are worried men are after your booty more than your bootay, well, then, dress down, and don't make it so obvious you have money. And yes, I'm aware I'm responding to spam, assholes. Jeez.

  • ||

    But it's my understanding that the eviction was a surprise.

    Your understanding is wrong. The deadline had been given days before. You might want to read up on the subject before depending on such understandings.

  • ||

    yes. the exact time may have been a surprise

    the fact that they were given AMPLE notice of the deadline was not

  • ||

    The police raid was unscheduled. Wait, wait, wait. Are you arguing that they were given a deadline to leave last week, but the city is enforcing that deadline only now?

  • ||

    Let's say a person camps out on my lawn with a bunch of heavy, bulky items, and at 8AM on the way to work I tell them to get the hell off my property. They ignore me, and I'm in a hurry, so I don't immediately remove them by force.

    When I come back home at 6PM, they're still there and I remove them at gunpoint, but they don't take their stuff with them. Do they have a claim against me for making them leave their stuff behind?

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 10:04PM|#
    "Let's say a person camps out on my lawn..."

    Let's say we argue about what the government does with taxpayer money compared to what a company wishes to pay its officers.
    You're getting to be a champion of false equivalence.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The rules of a shanty town are different than those in normal society. Everyone knows that.

  • ||

    My parents were evicted out of their home about 15 years ago.

    Everything they owned was dumped out on the sidewalk/curb. They had 2 days to remove it, anything that remained was thrown into a garbage truck.

    Since they didn't have any money, to get it hauled off, that's actually what happened to most of it.

    This is not new.

  • Sevo||

    JeremyR|12.5.11 @ 10:02PM|#
    "My parents were evicted out of their home about 15 years ago.
    Everything they owned was dumped out on the sidewalk/curb. They had 2 days to remove it, anything that remained was thrown into a garbage truck."

    False equivalence; they were evicted from private property and they had the chance to salvage it.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    The protestors had a chance to salvage their stuff. They blew the deadline by two days - that is ample chance to clear out with your shit.

  • ||

    It might have been a surprise that the city actually had the balls to kick them out after the deadline passed, but the deadline itself was not a surprise. They were given two days notice.

    Damn, I completely forgot that the city told them to GTFO and then didn't enforce it.

    I'm going to go ahead and say you've persuaded me. (This may be an internet first.) If they did have ample warning then I'd say they are forfeiting any property they left behind.

  • ||

    "If they did have ample warning then I'd say they are forfeiting any property they left behind."

    At least describe it accurately: "property that was forcibly ripped from their hands, and scattered across the park as they were marched away at gunpoint."

  • ||

    use more adverbs, man! it adds to the colorful misery effect.

    hth

  • ||

    and fwiw, i agree with you that the notice thing is key. granted, they WERE violating the law even w/o the eviction notice, but the eviction notice essentially makes it abundantly clear that if they choose to continue to trespass after the deadline, they have ONLY themselves to blame when they are dragged off w/o their stuffz

  • DuncePhy||

    and fwiw

    coming from you? not a hell of a lot.
    hth

  • ||

    +10 me!

    sw33t. LEVEL UP!

  • DuncePhy||

    +10 me!
    Extra life.
    But the princess is in another castle.

  • ||

    +10 me

  • DuncePhy||

    +10 me!

  • ||

    Look, don't any of you assholes remember the "feeding bums in a park" thread?

    I'm clearly against allowing filthy, smelly people to utilize public property, and will shed no tears over their useless, filthy possessions being destroyed.

  • chris||

    Pretty much how I feel about the OWS was summed up in Dylan's Positively 4th Street

    No, I do not feel that good
    When I see the heartbreaks you embrace
    If I was a master thief
    Perhaps I'd rob them

    And now I know you're dissatisfied
    With your position and your place
    Don't you understand
    It's not my problem

    I wish that for just one time
    You could stand inside my shoes
    And just for that one moment
    I could be you

    Yes, I wish that for just one time
    You could stand inside my shoes
    You'd know what a drag it is
    To see you

    Why Reason still churns these post out on them, I haven't the faintest.

  • ||

    Obviously a spoof.

    Sevo.

  • chris||

    Blech, OWS is old news.

    Anyone doing an up to date count on the number of wars this administration has us fighting? Reason sure as hell isn't. Now we have to include Iran in the mix:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com.....204?page=1

    Wasn't Peace Train a theme song of the Obama '08 campaign?

  • chris||

    Oh, and good going in Egypt too, Barry.

    Egypt's ElBaradei: Liberals 'Decimated' in Vote

    http://news.antiwar.com/2011/1.....-election/

  • ||

    Tehran is giving them military-issue half-beards and aviator sunglasses? Sign me the fuck up!

  • Duncephy||

    Why is that cop shit-stain commenting on this thread?

    Nobody take anything he has to say seriously. If he had any intelligence or common human decency, he'd get a real job and stop being a tax-payer funded mooch. His opinions on all subjects are automatically invalidated due to his chosen occupation as fascist stormtrooper and undercover informant, ruining people's lives for voluntary activities.

  • ||

    +10 me

  • DuncePhy||

    +10 me

  • Duncephy||

    Sorry, didn't mean to encroach on your handle. Now I know why spelling it that way occured to me; I must have seen yours before.

    If it's any help, I can change my dunphy spoof handle to "shit-breath lying cop" and everyone will still know who it refers to.

  • ||

    +10 me!!!

  • DuncePhy||

    +10 meeeeee!

  • shit-breath lying cop||

    Hope all those pluses make up for the innocent lives you've ruined when you couldn't use "officer discretion" to allow nonviolent, consentual drug users to remain free.

  • DuncePhy||

    now now, everyone is guilty of something.

  • shit-breath lying cop||

    Oh I'm sure they were guilty of SOMETHING. At least running them in on the mj charges got those hooligans off the streets, where I knew they were probably robbing convenience stores and buying more than their gov't allotted ration of cold medications.

    Doesn't matter what we get you for, as long as we get you.

  • ||

    +10 me

  • ||

    "In a fitting end for a movement based on the idea that all real property and legitimate contractual debt can be virtualized"

    Whether or not some individuals involved in the movement personally believe the above, that's actually not what the movement is "based on". I, for example, don't happen to subscribe to the above, and the above was never broadly consented to as a tenet of the movement.

    FWIW, I happen to be one of the 292 Occupy LA folks who got arrested last Wednesday morning at City Hall Park after having my possessions forcibly removed from me and destroyed by the LAPD.

    Patrick Meighan
    Culver City, CA

  • Commentator ||

    Ah, a movementarian. What were the tenets of the movement?

  • ||

    The most basic tenet of the movement is that our elected representatives (at all levels, of both major parties) serve the interests of the wealthy, powerful few over the interests of the less-wealthy, less-powerful many, and that current vast extent of economic, political and social inequality in our nation is harmful, and a threat to the health and future of our republic.

    That's it.

    Now, the individuals associated with Occupy LA indeed have varied, differing assessments as to the specifics of the above (including some who may consider all property to be theft, and many many others who do not, including yours truly). And the individuals associated with Occupy LA have varied, differing suggestions as to the optimal specific solutions to the above-written problem (including some who may suggest a transition to communism and many many others who do not, including yours truly).

    To call us a "Property-Is-Theft" Movement may make for nifty headline snark, but it's inaccurate. I simply note this on the very offhand chance that accuracy is the aim, here. That may be naiive on my part.

    Patrick Meighan
    Culver City, CA

  • Sevo||

    Assuming you speak for O(x):
    Patrick Meighan|12.5.11 @ 10:53PM|#
    The most basic tenet of the movement is that our elected representatives (at all levels, of both major parties) serve the interests of the wealthy, powerful few over the interests of the less-wealthy, less-powerful many,"
    Agreed.

    "and that current vast extent of economic, political and social inequality in our nation is harmful, and a threat to the health and future of our republic."
    Uh, sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about.
    You're conflating drastically different circumstances.

  • implied Patrick Meighan||

    Inequality is the problem. We must force things to be more equal. I'm just not clever enough to espouse a solution that doesn't sound like I want the government to ass-rape everyone else on my behalf.

  • Tony||

    If by ass-rape you mean a modest change in tax policy.

  • Longer Tony||

    MOAR TAXES!!! Poor people deserve your money regardless of how much effort they've put into getting ahead in life!!!

  • So...||

    ..."modest" = "seventy cents on the dollar"?

  • A fan||

    We're you charged for living on state property?

    We'll be sending you a bill.

  • Sevo||

    Tsunami Tulpa|12.5.11 @ 10:13PM|#
    ..."will shed no tears over their useless, filthy possessions being destroyed."

    Glad you, as a third party, are willing to establish the value of others' possessions, and we'll ignore that bit of bullshit.
    Let's talk about principles.
    Peoples' freedoms and property rights are not granted by a government, even accepting the specifics of the Bill or Rights; they are "unalienable". That is not subject to 'grants' by any government nor to negotiation.
    *IF* the area in question is "public" (yes, bozo, the "commons") then the "public" can use it as they please, absent a showing of coercion of others in that use.
    In the US, we especially protect political speech, *REGARDLESS* of the content of that speech; the corrective of vile speech is speech by others. And, absent any coercion of others' rights, there is no reason to presume that speech ends at a particular time of day.
    Anyone care to offer an *honest* argument that O(x) has coerced (NOT inconvenienced) others in the commons? I haven't seen it.
    Further, whatever the O(x) whackos are doing doesn't seem to require a 'solution' other than opposing speech or, perhaps the privatization of those commons.
    And, yes, bozo (I found the silly question), if you 'stored' your furniture in the commons, it should not be stolen. At worst, it would be removed and held until you retrieved it and paid for the storage.

  • Shorter Sevo||

    "Fuck you!"

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    *IF* the area in question is "public" (yes, bozo, the "commons") then the "public" can use it as they please, absent a showing of coercion of others in that use.

    All you are doing is assuming the argument. Why should anyone have the right to use government property as they see fit?

    Does that mean I have the right to enter public museums and deface the art? That's not coercive; it's just destructive.

    Can I take a shit in the subway? That's not coercive; it's just disgusting and inconvenient.

    Can I dump my property all over public parks? Well, we usually call that "pollution" and it results in massive fines. These guys had notice to vacate. They didn't. They understood they would be evicted, and did not take advantage of the chance to salvage their chattel. Therefore it amounts to litter and can be disposed of indiscriminately.

    Your wrongness is only surpassed by your smug self-satisfaction, which makes you a big ol' fuckface in my book. For what it's worth, I think that reasonable people can disagree on this subject, but you don't think that, and that makes you a dick.

  • Sevo||

    Beloved Rev. Blue Moon |12.5.11 @ 11:56PM|#
    "Does that mean I have the right to enter public museums and deface the art? That's not coercive; it's just destructive.
    Can I take a shit in the subway? That's not coercive; it's just disgusting and inconvenient."

    Your examples are so stupid and childish I find it incredible anyone who calls themselves a thinking adult would come up with that crap.
    I hesitate to use this phrase when describing non-trolls, but you sir are vermin shit.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Answer the questions, please.

  • Sevo||

    Beloved Rev. Blue Moon |12.6.11 @ 12:11AM|#
    "Answer the questions, please."

    Sorry, I don't feed vermin. All you get is vermin shit. If you can't see the stupidity in your statements, it will take someone with a lot of patience and experience working with the retarded and mentally handicapped to get through to you.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Fine, we'll keep working on it. However, it should be noted that the Occupy movement already has a reputation for taking #2s on public land, so the example is pertinent, your unwarranted and childish anger aside.

    So, can I sleep in the museum? How about a police station? Maybe inside a nuclear silo? After all, they are all funded with taxpayer dollars and are therefore public by your own admission.

  • ||

    Sevo is going off the rails on the gravy train. Pay no heed.

  • yogi||

    I've learned that Sevo's mind is a fortress that cannot be occupied by anything that isn't already in there.

  • ||

    That was a spoof.

    I'm never that overt with my hatred of humanity.

  • Ocuupant||

    We now must invade the 1%, occupy them as we occupy ourselves. The discovery that living life in the open is a devastating protest strategy has now been clubbed and pepper-sprayed into a revolution that is everywhere. It was our continuing to move forward with body and soul that was unmistakable. Now we'll cross this bridge after the violence and the bad weather.

  • Tony||

    Power to you, but what happens when you don't vote in 2012 and ever-more empowered Republicans make life worse for everyone?

  • Um...||

    that was a spoof of an occutard.

  • Ocuupant||

    No, they really are that dumb

  • That...||

    is frightening and makes me weep for the future.

  • So...||

    ...having ever-more empowered Democrats, is a better alternative?

    Unchecked power corrupts much quicker than gridlocked power.

  • yogi||

    Everyone Tony? I thought the Rs wanted to make the rich richer and poor poorer.

  • NotSure||

    Tony you clown, please enlighten us which party the cops were taking orders from.

  • David Hester||

    Yuup

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "Astronomers discover two biggest black holes ever"

    I have a hard time coming up with A material. Someone help me out here so I can write it down.

  • lllopoop||

    "Astronomers discover cosmic doughnuts?"

  • David Hester||

    Yuup

  • Obersvientati||

    la gente esta muy loca

  • Mr. Newman||

    finder's keepers, losers weepers

  • wingnutx||

    I'm more against private property, not personal property...

    Check out the video at 4:15. The entire thing is hysterical.

  • Tragedy of the Commons||

    How the fuck do I work?

  • possession||

    we are 9/10 of the law.
    bitches.

  • ||

    +100 me

  • DuncePhy||

    Ever go 75 and not get caught?

  • ||

    +1000 me

  • DuncePhy||

    +1 brazillion me

  • ||

    I got into a heated argument with some dipshit from Alberta who was all SOLIDATIRY MAH OCCUPIER BROTHERS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERIKKKA on gun control and tax laws. He got tired of explanations and went completely apeshit anti-American on me. So I printed a picture of a dick, and held it in front of my webcam.

    The furious reaction was priceless. Butthurt dipshit was butthurt.

    I don't think actual debate will get you anywhere with determined progressives.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Haven't read all the comments, but there are a couple of points here:

    The govt has legitimate duties of public health, including decontaminating and maybe throwing out unsanitary crap left in public parks. It also has responsibility to try and locate the owners of abandoned property that *isn't* trash.

    How to tell between unsanitary trash and abandoned property?

    I would say that if it's possible to hold on to abandoned property without endangering public health, the govt should do so. They should try to find the owners. If the owners don't show up, then in some state (I don't know about Calif), the property is disposed of for some useful purpose. Abandonment and failure to claim the property means you've waived your rights, assuming the property was properly advertised. No obligation to hold on to abandoned property indefinitely - like earlier posters said, the owner isn't paying storage fees, so if he doesn't come by to claim it within a reasonable time, why should the govt store it for him?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If they find (say) non-urine-soaked, non-vermin-infested books in a public park, it should go to the Abandoned Property Office which advertises for it and sees if the owner shows up. But don't wait for the owner forever. Auction it off if the owner doesn't care to reclaim his precious book.

  • ||

    The real irony is that a publication called reason is so unreasonable about American citizens expressing their constitutional rights. But most Americans have become terrified of their own constitution and bill of rights to the extent that they have been rendered irrelevant. I think that conflating the ideas of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon that "property is theft" is a missrepresentation of the facts when described as underpinning the whole of this movement, but i suppose it serves your purpose as a biased right wing propagandist organisation. Its such a shame that a country like America that held so much promise for fair governance and freedom has been reduced to the state of being just another corrupt fundamentalist state full of demagogues and hypocrites who could not claim to be anymore credible than a country like Saudi Arabia.

  • ||

    If you need to infringe on the rights of others to exercise your rights, you're doing it wrong. Fail. That is the ultimate failure of the left, epitomized by Orwell's Animal Farm where some are "more equal" than others. The view that your right to protest exceeds the rights of business owners, land owners, and the rest of the collective public to use their land/location/facilities/roads/ports/bridges/etc as they see fit.

  • ||

    Good luck creating your crypto fascist paradise with shah Gingrich, I hope all your paranoid fantasies come true, because the end result is going to be the same, class warfare and the second american civil war. Neoliberalism is over so get over it. You also dont seem to really know anything about the politics of the left other than what you have naively soaked up from the days of Joseph McCarthy.

    The commons are there to be used and shared, not coveted by an entitled few as you seem to sugest. That is the whole point of the constitution i thought. Freedom for all to "remonstrate grievances against their elected officials". Your empty rhetoric seems to have proved my point that Americans are terrified of their own constitution.

  • sed_lon||

    Thank you, Sam. I totally agree.

  • Ron F*****g Swanson||

    If we just folowed my advice to privatize all parks, there wouldn't be any ambiguity who the abandoned property belonged to.

  • Jose||

    They destroyed one of the nice, large format copies of "Rackham the Red's Treasure"? NoOOoooOOoOoOOoooOOO!!!1!!

  • ||

    If I own some land or a house, and you leave property in my house, or you were trespassing on my land and left something. Am I not free to dispose of that property? They say possession is 9/10ths of the law. You shouldn't even attempt to draw the connection between this and personal property rights. There is a difference between having something taken from you, and you leaving something in a location not your home, workplace, land, etc, where you may be trespassing to be there to begin with. The first rule of liberty is do not infringe on the rights of others, and land owners, business owners, are people with rights too. With public land, we all own it, and we all have collectively set rules for using it. If one group violates those rules they are just as guilty as if the land was privately owned. If you do not like the rules the appropriate thing is to have them changed through the normal democratic process, not to ignore them.

  • ||

    So chris do you really care about the parks or have you actually got another axe to grind all together? Just come out and say it dont be coy. You really just want to string up some group who's ideology is contrary to your own. If you were a patriot you would love freedom and be protecting your fellow citizens to express their freedoms even if the specifics of their expressions dont appeal to you.

  • ||

    One of the many disconnects is that, by "occupying" parks and other "public" property, the Occupants were effectively converting it to their own use. In effect, it was no longer public property, but was the Occupant's property.

    So spare me the outrage about how getting booted off public property was a violation of their rights. There is no right to make public property your own.

    If they were given notice that they had to clear out or they would be kicked out, then anything that was still there when the deadline arrived was effectively abandoned. If the city wants to junk it, so be it. Actions, including civil disobedience, have consequences,

  • ||

    Do you think unions have a right to protest on the public sidewalk in front of a business?

    I saw a strike against a chain of grocery stores that went for weeks. The unions members would picket in shifts.

    They have a right to protest. Do they have a right to protest in such a way that it becomes a health hazard the community or that it deprives everyone else of using the park?

    That's when they get on shaky ground.

    It isn't the fact that the protest was on, essentially, public property that bothers me. Each one of those individuals has just as much right to use public space as I do.

    If they were denying someone else's use of that property--that would be a problem regardless of whether the property were public or private. The issue of whether it was creating a health hazard to the rest of community, too--that alone might even justify the government coming in to my mind.

    Byt, if the only place people are really allowed to protest is in their own homes, then the right to protest doesn't amount to much. And someday this libertarian might need to protest something.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement