Rudy Giuliani is a dangerous interventionist and war monger, but at least he got the crazies and the filthty of the streets of NYC when he was mayor of the city. (Though, I have no idea what he did with them.)
Now, the total nutjobs are back in charge and the crazies and filthy are back.
NyPo explains:
This urinating vagrant (above) turned a busy stretch of Broadway into his own private bathroom yesterday – an offense that would result in a mere summons if Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and her pals get their way.
Wrapped in rags and a Mets blanket the hobo wandered into traffic at around 10:30 a.m. and relieved himself as cabs, cars and buses whizzed by between West 83rd and 84th streets on the Upper West Side.
He finished his business at a nearby garbage bin, then strolled back to the front of a Victoria’s Secret store at Broadway and 85th Street, where he camped out for the rest of the day.
Mark-Viverito in April announced plans to decriminalize public urination along with five other low-level offenses: biking on the sidewalk, public consumption of alcohol, being in a park after dark, failure to obey a park sign and jumping subway turnstiles.
Police Commissioner Bill Bratton — who in the early ’90s implemented a “broken windows” approach to policing to dramatically cut crime — is against the new plan, saying such offenses lead to more serious crimes.
Bill Caprese, 38, who lives on 82nd Street with his 6-year-old daughter, was appalled by the street urinator.
“It’s absolutely a failure of government. It’s a total abject failure,” he said. “The mayor could fix it. The governor could fix it. We need asylums.”
An employee at the Victoria’s Secret, where the homeless man often lounges, said he drives away business.
“He curses people out, threatens lives,” said the employee, who works in the lingerie chain’s loss-prevention department.
“Customers complain about him all the time.”
And the growing problem isn’t solely on city streets.
Transit hubs, including Penn Station, are plagued by surging numbers of homeless people who publicly masturbate, harass bystanders and demand free food as the city looks the other way, commuters complain.
“It reminds me of the pre-[Rudy] Giuliani era,” said Jim Hoover, 60, who has been commuting through Penn Station since 1986. “The police aren’t chasing them away anymore.”
Just outside the Port Authority Bus Terminal, a homeless man drunkenly knocked a woman to the floor while stumbling around the sidewalk.
The bum, who goes by “Monk,” was arrested by a cop at the scene and taken away by an FDNY ambulance.
“He’s going to get a hospital bed and a slap on the wrist,” said Timothy Arroyo, who was watching from a crowd that gathered.
"He’ll be back out here tomorrow.”
A PA source said there has been a “noticeable uptick” in vagrants at the terminal in recent months.
“It’s a trend,” the source said.-RW
Your comment about Guiliani reminds me of the comment about Mussolini, "at least he made the trains run on time." As to what "he" did with "them", use your imagination. One thing is certain, it was a trend away from liberty. FWIW, I think these incidents could very well be provocateured by the very same folks who will benefit from the eruption of the "crazies are back" outrage engendered by these stories. Again, it will further the trend away from liberty in NYC.
ReplyDeleteIf these bums are negatively impacting surrounding businesses and people walking on the street then that is a violation of the NAP. For example, if a group of people decide to stand on a public street in front of a business fully naked and masturbate, that business would lose customers and their behavior should be curtailed. It is also an act of aggression against those walking on the street, perhaps with children, who would have no choice but to witness the activity.
DeleteWell, I guess you weren't in NYC in the '70's and '80's.
DeleteAs long as we have "the commons" with all the problems THAT brings, anti-social behavior (and yes, I'd include pissing on the street), is a violation of the NAP, as it would be if he pissed on my personal property.
The libertarian solution, of course, is NO "commons", then the street company could bring civil action against this pig.
In other words, if we haven't gotten to libertarian nirvana yet, I STILL don't want this asshole pissing in front of my daughter.
I don't condone the actions of the vagrant but he probably thinks a NAP violation is when you wake him up mid afternoon while he's sleeping on his favorite steam grate. You hedged your comments nicely but they imply that you wouldn't mind if Johnny Law was to come and crack some skulls and take the vagrant somewhere, anywhere that you can't see him.
DeleteI lived near NYC for a good part of my life and worked downtown for 15 years. I saw some of before, all of during, and some of after Guiliani and I don't think there is more liberty in that city now then there was back then. Back in the day you could have a smoke in a bar, enjoy an XXL soda and do a lot of other things on a manner that was way freer than a lot of other places in the USA. Nowadays, I hope you like a fully fledged police mini-state, 24/7 surveillance, and any number of nanny state rules and regs to go along with your Fed inflated cost of living, consumer prices, real estate, etc. I don't much like NYC and now live far away and won't ever go back. In my opinion, the vagrant issue is the least of that city's problems.
I'm glad I lived in NYC post-Guiliani and pre-DeBlasio.
DeleteUntil property rights are fully recognized (as in the masturbating morons in front of Victoria's Secret) then this will get worse.
@ Hollow Daze
Delete"I don't condone the actions of the vagrant but he probably thinks a NAP violation is when you wake him up mid afternoon while he's sleeping on his favorite steam grate."
And this is relevant, how? Many non-vagrants and non-drunks don't know the NAP either.
"You hedged your comments nicely but they imply that you wouldn't mind if Johnny Law was to come and crack some skulls and take the vagrant somewhere, anywhere that you can't see him."
Actually, he implied no such thing. What he implied is that action is taken. Not that "skulls be cracked" and the vagrant taken "somewhere" (implying that he is disappeared). Just because someone feels that action should be taken against a violator of the NAP doesn't mean he wants the modern-day use of fascist militarized police tactics to be employed.
"I don't much like NYC and now live far away and won't ever go back. In my opinion, the vagrant issue is the least of that city's problems."
You offer a false choice fallacy as an "argument". There is no reason why libertarians should "accept" public pissing by filthy vagrants in any way shape or form, just because there are worse problems. The person who's young child sees this behavior, or the business who is losing customers because of it, have only one concern at THAT particular moment in time, and that concern is a vagrant that is behaving indecently in public.
@deindividualist:
DeleteMy attempt at humor was meant to highlight the absurdity of libertarian theory when applied to the real world as it is today. Action should be taken? Do explain... To deal with guy, you have 3 choices, ignore him and move along, go vigilante on him for your version of justice (good luck with that), or call the cops. I think choice a is most rationally consistent with a libertarian outlook.
You may be right about the logical fallacy. My skills as a rhetorician do fail from time to time. Nonetheless, you have the 3 choices noted above including "accepting it" and moving on. As far as children seeing this "behavior", I would explain to my daughter the man's unfortunate circumstances, the fact that we can and should avoid him, and that a degree of compassion is likely appropriate. Now, if we came across a Fed bankster in suit and tie with perfect manners, she would get an earful.
@ Hollow Daze
DeleteYou would be wrong about the "absurdity" of applying libertarian theory to the real world. Libertarian theory can deal just fine with the real world by noticing next best alternatives to the "ideal" solution.
You would also be wrong about Choice A being the most rationally consistent with a libertarian outlook. Since the libertarian taxpayer is forced to pay for the roads, and since the libertarian taxpayer is forced to pay for the cops and alternatives to both aren't possible because of government's monopoly, it is perfectly consistent with the libertarian outlook to "employ" the state's means to achieve a desired outcome - in terms of maximizing property rights and the non-aggression principle - without necessarily condoning the existence of the state itself. To go back to libertarians noticing "next best alternatives to the ideal solution", libertarians have both a moral right and logical imperative to use cops to prevent and if necessary remove vagrants from behavior where they harm innocent civilians or their businesses. Because, again, libertarians who don't want to be harassed by pissing vagrants have no other choice. It is no different than using the roads despite them being financed in immoral ways.
What you would explain to your daughter is certainly within your right, but has nothing to do with the problem. Some other people, strange as it may seem, may simply not want their daughter to see a man taking out his penis and urinating in the street. And personal preference to be compassionate doesn't change the fact that others have a right - from a libertarian perspective of course - not to have a urinating vagrant driving customers away or to see this behavior in public, so long as they too are forced to pay for public property.
I do like you telling her all about the slimy Fed bankster though.
@deindividualist
DeleteSo your version of the "next best libertarian action to be taken" IS to call in the skull crackers for a "disappearance." Got it. You should have just led with that.
Too much "public" property, too little private property.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little surprised by this post to be sure.
ReplyDeletePeople getting squeezed out at the periphery is one of the 'unseen' consequences of fiat monetary policy. I live in the bay area and the bubble gentrification of my neighborhood is palpable, but there has been a simultaneous influx of bums in the area as well. Many seem to be coming from more rural areas. Lots of 'not really a bum but defi itely unwashed' hillbilly types.
ReplyDelete