Thursday, September 19, 2019

Trump's Direct Attack on the People's Republic of San Francisco: Who Should Libertarians Support?

Jennifer Jacobs, Sr. White House reporter for Bloomberg News reports:

This is interesting from a libertarian perspective.

Who should libertarians support? The more powerful national leader or the local Fog City leaders?

I would think that some libertarians would always back local leaders over national leaders. My view, however, is that they are both evil and thus all clashes between local governments and national rule must be judged on an ad hoc basis.

In this case, I view the homeless situation in San Francisco as a disgusting nuisance on public sidewalks. If the sidewalks were privately owned, there is no chance the homeless would be allowed to loiter on the sidewalks.

The difference can easily be seen by the aisles inside the Westfield Mall in downtown San Francisco and the sidewalks immediately outside the Mall.

I would rather see a private sector solution, but in the battle between Trump and Fog city officials my support on this issue goes to Trump. His position is closest to what would occur if the sidewalks were privately owned.



  1. I agree there is no difference between the evil of local and federal governments. But how is an EPA violation notice going to magically wash the SF sidewalks free of homeless people? This strikes as just another Trump Stunt.

  2. Having lived on the streets of L.A. for half a year a few decades back I have the perspective to know how complex an issue homeless is to solve. Of course most people that can do something concrete to address the issue (city planners) just make it harder on the homeless and give lip service to the problem.

    I like to agree with RW on this one. Generating real consequences that hit the pocket of the city may generate some creative solutions

  3. In my opinion, I have to go with the socialist freak show that is San Francisco. A free society (of course San Fran is no such thing) could decide that it doesn’t mind homeless people crapping on the side walks and leaving needles everywhere. This society wouldn’t last long, but if the people who live there are willing to put up with it, it’s sure not the business of some guy who lives 3,000 miles away.
    I see it as a foreign intervention.
    Of course none of this really works because of the reality that San Francisco is a shire of the mighty empire. But it’s still none of Trumps business what the Friscos do.

  4. My view is that the principle of subsidiarity trumps Trump here. It need not be a state entity which should be the competent authority to solve San Francisco's bum problem. "The San Francisco Committee of Vigilance was a vigilante group formed in 1851. The catalyst for its formation was the criminality of the Sydney Ducks. It was revived in 1856 in response to rampant crime and corruption in the municipal government of San Francisco, California." It did not claim a monopoly on the use of force.

  5. Trump. Actually it is neither. We should support those that have been violated by the pollution. In the current scheme of things for this issue that is Trump.

    On the other hand I like to see the more local entities throw up the middle finger to the less locals. So would enjoy seeing SF tell the EPA to pound sand on this homeless issue and CA do the same on the vehicle emissions issue.

    I would also enjoy one of SF’s neighbors taking issue with SF’s homeless pollution crossing borders. Similar to neighboring private property owners.

  6. I was happy to hear about this. Maybe some fines like $10 million per day or something. Shitlibs need to be taught a lesson and what better way than having the jack boot of the feds in their bungholes.

    1. Yeah that would really hurt the people who would pay the fine with other people’s money. The feds sure do give the jack boot treatment to other government entities don’t they.

    2. I'm well aware of who would pay the fine. But it's fitting justice for such sacks of crap.