Libertarians arrested for feeding the hungry

[sandinista]

Man - I forgot homeless people aren't really humans, or even like pigeons or ducks some people like to feed, but something closer to rats - certainly classed as vermin. So yeah, starve em to death before they breed, I say, so that we can pretend they don't exist and the local businesses - those shrines to capitalism at whose feet we all pay penance - can sell more goods made by the slaves in China/India/Bangladesh we can't see...

[Robert_S]

What happens to the workers at the small downtown business when nobody wants to bother going past 20 people panhandling them? They end up working at a chain store at the mall! That is, if there are any jobs out there.

Your locally owned downtown place is where some human individual will be more likely to use their conscience when it comes to where the product comes from and how the business operates. Your corporate place often cannot put such concerns above increasing shareholder profit.

[Seth]

What happens to the workers at the small downtown business when nobody wants to bother going past 20 people panhandling them? They end up working at a chain store at the mall! That is, if there are any jobs out there.

The price of liberty is that sometimes you have to ignore other people and what they are doing. The Supreme Court has ruled that "panhandling" is a First Amendment free-speech right. I can approach you and ask "Would you give me a dollar" and your right is to say "no" and walk on. The government cannot prevent me from asking you for a dollar any more than it can prevent me from asking you for directions to a local pub.

There is a class of "aggressive" panhandling that can be regulated, and most cities have very carefully crafted laws that prevent panhandlers from harassing, insulting, touching, obstructing or otherwise acting aggressively that have been upheld.

Boulder, Colorado has an ordinance that applies to their pedestrian mall (and other areas) that says that one may not panhandle within 15 feet of the entrance to any business. This has so far been upheld, and it moves the beggars away from store entrances out onto the mall, where patrons can avoid them if they want.

But it's still not a crime to sit around in a public park, even if you sit around in it all day and all night.

Your locally owned downtown place is where some human individual will be more likely to use their conscience when it comes to where the product comes from and how the business operates. Your corporate place often cannot put such concerns above increasing shareholder profit.

Sure it can, and corporations commonly adjust their practices to comport with social policy due to consumer pressure.

[Robert_S]

What happens to the workers at the small downtown business when nobody wants to bother going past 20 people panhandling them? They end up working at a chain store at the mall! That is, if there are any jobs out there.

The price of liberty is that sometimes you have to ignore other people and what they are doing. The Supreme Court has ruled that "panhandling" is a First Amendment free-speech right. I can approach you and ask "Would you give me a dollar" and your right is to say "no" and walk on. The government cannot prevent me from asking you for a dollar any more than it can prevent me from asking you for directions to a local pub.

There is a class of "aggressive" panhandling that can be regulated, and most cities have very carefully crafted laws that prevent panhandlers from harassing, insulting, touching, obstructing or otherwise acting aggressively that have been upheld.

Boulder, Colorado has an ordinance that applies to their pedestrian mall (and other areas) that says that one may not panhandle within 15 feet of the entrance to any business. This has so far been upheld, and it moves the beggars away from store entrances out onto the mall, where patrons can avoid them if they want.

But it's still not a crime to sit around in a public park, even if you sit around in it all day and all night.

I agree with the free speech principle and I'm also pro loitering. I'm addressing the thinking that would be behind the pro/anti Food not Bombs sentiments.

Your locally owned downtown place is where some human individual will be more likely to use their conscience when it comes to where the product comes from and how the business operates. Your corporate place often cannot put such concerns above increasing shareholder profit.

Sure it can, and corporations commonly adjust their practices to comport with social policy due to consumer pressure.

True, but if there were no consumer pressure, a publicly traded corporation would not take such things into account.

[Hermit]

It's actually a political statement when it's Food not Bombs.

Libertarians with political statements? Well, I'd nevah...

Where do you get that FNB are "libertarians"?

Being an optimist, I believe there is a possibility that you'll eventually work that out yourself. Start here:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs and organizations, all advocating minimization of the state and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom.

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced, with minarchists advocating reduction to only state protection from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and anarchists advocating complete elimination of the state. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead. Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and co-operative ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system.

Then have a look at The Principles of Food not Bombs and its history.

[rachelbean]

FNB at least in the states, are definitely not libertarians (or at least the ones I've met). Having been involved with them for several years I'd say some are democrats, most are democratic socialists, some are straight socialist or communists, at least within the groups in southern and northern california I was involved with.

Having said that the actual feeding was done with no statements, no politics and no drama with the city. We got our food from restaurants that were about to throw the veggies and such out, and it was free and we made it in huge vats at volunteers personal kitchens and got day old bread from bakeries for free as well. In San Francisco especially, if anything, the large amounts of people we fed kept them away from panhandling and harassing others if at least for an hour, so if anything I think the authorities were grateful. I came upon a lot of grateful faces, and never any conflict from anywhere

[sandinista]

Being an optimist, I believe there is a possibility that you'll eventually work that out yourself. Start here:

FNB at least in the states, are definitely not libertarians

Same in canaduh, still don't know what your on about Seraph, no matter how optimistic you may be.

Having been involved with them for several years I'd say some are democrats, most are democratic socialists, some are straight socialist or communists, at least within the groups in southern and northern california I was involved with.

When I was involved, most of the members were either (labels are for shirts, but hey) communists, socialists, anarchists, and more or less vegans or vegetarians of the leftist persuasion.

[Robert_S]

FNB at least in the states, are definitely not libertarians (or at least the ones I've met). Having been involved with them for several years I'd say some are democrats, most are democratic socialists, some are straight socialist or communists, at least within the groups in southern and northern california I was involved with.

Having said that the actual feeding was done with no statements, no politics and no drama with the city. We got our food from restaurants that were about to throw the veggies and such out, and it was free and we made it in huge vats at volunteers personal kitchens and got day old bread from bakeries for free as well. In San Francisco especially, if anything, the large amounts of people we fed kept them away from panhandling and harassing others if at least for an hour, so if anything I think the authorities were grateful. I came upon a lot of grateful faces, and never any conflict from anywhere

I Berkely, FNB cooperated with the city, at least they did when I was out there.

In my hometown, there was an anti-pragmatic streak that pretty much killed it.

There is an implicit politics to FNB. The very name is a political statement. They don't shout slogans or carry on about some doctrine to the point where you want to run away quickly, so it's easy to overlook that.

[sandinista]

There is an implicit politics to FNB. The very name is a political statement. They don't shout slogans or carry on about some doctrine to the point where you want to run away quickly, so it's easy to overlook that.

Yes, FNB is political, but...everything is political.

[Robert_S]

There is an implicit politics to FNB. The very name is a political statement. They don't shout slogans or carry on about some doctrine to the point where you want to run away quickly, so it's easy to overlook that.

Yes, FNB is political, but...everything is political.

OK, FNB is intentionally political, but it is more values based politics than doctrine based, which I think is a Good Thing.

[Svartalf]

^ that makes good sense, Seth.

which is why I am uneasy about it

[Seth]

What happens to the workers at the small downtown business when nobody wants to bother going past 20 people panhandling them? They end up working at a chain store at the mall! That is, if there are any jobs out there.

The price of liberty is that sometimes you have to ignore other people and what they are doing. The Supreme Court has ruled that "panhandling" is a First Amendment free-speech right. I can approach you and ask "Would you give me a dollar" and your right is to say "no" and walk on. The government cannot prevent me from asking you for a dollar any more than it can prevent me from asking you for directions to a local pub.

There is a class of "aggressive" panhandling that can be regulated, and most cities have very carefully crafted laws that prevent panhandlers from harassing, insulting, touching, obstructing or otherwise acting aggressively that have been upheld.

Boulder, Colorado has an ordinance that applies to their pedestrian mall (and other areas) that says that one may not panhandle within 15 feet of the entrance to any business. This has so far been upheld, and it moves the beggars away from store entrances out onto the mall, where patrons can avoid them if they want.

But it's still not a crime to sit around in a public park, even if you sit around in it all day and all night.

I agree with the free speech principle and I'm also pro loitering. I'm addressing the thinking that would be behind the pro/anti Food not Bombs sentiments.

Your locally owned downtown place is where some human individual will be more likely to use their conscience when it comes to where the product comes from and how the business operates. Your corporate place often cannot put such concerns above increasing shareholder profit.

Sure it can, and corporations commonly adjust their practices to comport with social policy due to consumer pressure.

True, but if there were no consumer pressure, a publicly traded corporation would not take such things into account.

And why should it? That's not its business. It's business is offering products for sale to consumers in order to make money for the shareholders. Nothing wrong with that. Any motive to engage in charity or social altruism is based in a calculation about whether such actions will attract consumers and their money or drive them away. That's the beauty of the free market, you see. Consumers have all the power over corporations. All they have to do if they don't like the way a corporation does business is not trade with them. I, for example, will never trade with General Motors ever again, under any circumstances, because of the bailout, the defrauding of the secured bondholders, and the turning over of control of the company to the labor unions by Obama, all of which were flatly unconstitutional acts of a tyrant.

Corporations need to be regulated so that they engage in fair trading practices and do not export harm to others through their manufacturing processes most certainly, but for the rest, corporations reflect the public mores quite well. Most people, you see, don't expect corporations to be responsible for doing anything but providing them with the best products at the lowest price.