Guest Blog about Central Sq.

October 20, 2011 by Ian
Filed under: Essay, Issues

Brian Anderson, a potential future mover to Keene, comments on the Central Square controversy. He does get one major point wrong though, and that is that “Free Staters” were not the ones accused of cursing loudly at Central Square – it is only a few of the Juggalos that have been doing that. Most of the Juggalos are peaceful and are not causing that issue. That said, here’s Brian’s essay about what might be done:

To the people of Keene, New Hampshire:

A quick introduction—my name is Brian Anderson. I’m 21 years old and will be graduating with a bachelor’s degree in the biological sciences (concentration in human biology) in 2013. I hope to attend medical school and open a private surgery practice. I write a weekly opinion column for the university’s newspaper, and my writing is featured at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, LewRockwell.com, and a few other organizations.

I’m thrilled to think about moving to Keene after graduation, but recently the excitement hasn’t been as bright. I hear of inner-city arguments and a thick divide between the Free Staters and the pre-FSP residents of Keene. I can’t point out the real cause of this conflict seeing as I don’t live in the city yet, but it’s either (1) the rude actions of Free Staters, (2) the arrogant opinions of the other Keene residents, or (3) a troubled mixture of the two. A number of the comments made at a recent city council meeting were simply nonsensical. I don’t mean to be rude by saying that, but it’s difficult to ignore someone who promotes the idea that legislation should be based on human emotions.

One woman stated, “The crime is that what’s going on in Central Square is degrading our town. It’s causing people to be upset.” The accusations of intimidation, from what I’ve heard, include anything from smoking marijuana to cursing to real threats.

When it comes to smoking marijuana, you need to realize that the action isn’t hurting you. The only difference between a tobacco smoker and a marijuana smoker sitting on a bench in Central Square is the plant the individual is smoking. One woman at the meeting admitted that she can’t even tell the difference sometimes. You shouldn’t deem the latter an aggressive action if the former is not. In other words, please choose your battles.

Cursing is the second accusation, and it lands in the hands of the Free Staters. Legally, you can’t police language. It is a ridiculous sentiment to declare that people should be thrown into jail for saying an ‘inappropriate’ word out loud; that kind of legislation leads to an extremely slippery slope. However, as we all know, some words and phrases are culturally inappropriate in many circumstances. I certainly use a fair share of curse words throughout the day, but I would never use them in front of children. Likewise, business owners have complained that their patrons feel intimidated by the words being yelled by individuals. As a polite gesture of mending this broken relationship, I can only hope that a few Free Staters will take the lead and resolve this dispute within the community

The woman continued, “I talked to someone just today who said that they were thinking—when they retired—of buying property down here where they could walk around and shop. And they now feel so intimidated by what’s going on downtown that they would no longer consider doing that in Keene, New Hampshire.” The could-have-been residents of Keene didn’t like that people smoked outside and enjoyed listening to music late at night with their friends. That’s too bad for them. I also don’t like the amount of fast food joints in my current city but I don’t plan on contacting the city council in order to legally prohibit individuals from putting into their bodies what they desire. Quite frankly, our constitutional rights don’t end where another person’s feelings begin.

Third, if someone literally threatens you, call the police. Threatening to aggress against an individual is in direct violation of the non-aggression principle, one of the fundamental axioms of ethicality by which all voluntaryists abide. People who threaten or attack individuals cease to be true voluntaryists. As one man from the city council meeting stated, “Be proactive.” Find out the name of the individual who threatens you, or, better yet, take a picture of the person. Cameras are one of the best tools for transparency, and this tactic can be especially useful in the employment of reputation accountability. Let people in the Free State Project know exactly who threatened you; if their menacing actions continue, they may very well be shunned from the libertarian community. But don’t call the police when people are simply talking at night on a bench or smoking marijuana under the gazebo, or else you’ll end up as Aesop’s boy who cried wolf.

Another conflict was introduced by Carmelina Tonkinson, the owner of Miranda’s On Main: “I understand that these young adults have a right to sit there, but I, as a business owner, have a right to make money and have a business. I have customers that are walking out of my door, not wanting to shop, leaving [due to the troublemakers].”

There’s a little more to this situation than originally meets the eye, and it involves the definition of property. Carmelina is correct saying that she has the freedom to make money and open a business. She owns her store, capital, and entrepreneurial skills; she doesn’t, however, own her customers’ wishes or the competition in the free market.

Take Amicci’s Italian Pizza as an example. The owner, like Carmelina, owns the store, capital, and entrepreneurial skills. But to say that he owns the value of his property means that it would be legal to prohibit a competing pizza place from opening nearby for fear that the value of his own business would decrease. The same can be said if a customer were to put up a negative review of Armadillo’s Burritos. Should the owner be able to legally prohibit that reviewer from sharing an opinion about the store? The answer is no.

In essence—you own your property, not the value of the property. The solution to the ‘troublemaker conflict’ in Downtown Square will need to focus the ownership of real property. The gazebo area, as it stands, is public property and therefore the common ground belongs to all taxpayers, so unfortunately business owners around the area have no more say than the troublemakers do in terms of what happens on that property.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote, “If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is utilized without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns—lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil—do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation.” Likewise, the accusations of troublemakers hanging around the gazebo perfectly parallel the tragedy of the commons. People feel free to ‘misbehave’ on the unowned property because nobody has any stake in it. To me, the solution is quite clear: privatize the gazebo area.

One of the easiest ways to complete this transaction is through an auction. This purchase certainly has its notable libertarian detractors since it officially validates the government as the owner of the land instead of proceeding through the natural homesteading principle of ownership. However, I see this mediation as a fantastic way to refresh a friendship between the Free State Project and other Keene residents. I have one quick opinion on the contract details and one little recommendation to the local business owners.

The sale will put money into the hands of the government. This is an idea that most libertarians, including me, dislike. In order to alleviate the inevitable dispute, create a legal clarification that the deal between auctioneer and bidder will (1) allocate the transferred monies into the subsequent year’s treasury account at the local level—I cannot stress this point enough—and (2) be supplemented by a permanent decrease in taxes for the amount transferred since government maintenance is no longer required.

The recommendation to business owners on Main Street is to create a collection of money for the charity. Group together with nine other business owners, and I can almost guarantee that you’ll easily out-bid other individuals. The only exception that may compete against your attempt to purchase the land is another group of ten intelligent business owners. If you succeed in legally acquiring the land, the gazebo area can be used as you see fit without the unauthorized use and trespass by troublemakers.

Run it as a co-op organization, if you’d like. The purchase can still look exactly like public land in order to enrich the surrounding business atmosphere, but each member of your board of directors will have control over who is allowed to enter and for which reasons. Most of all, the purchase will become real property. Libertarians—more than any other political faction—respect private property, and for that reason they’ll respect the newly-owned gazebo area in a polite manner in accordance with libertarian principle.

I really do look forward to living in Keene in two years. I’ll feel extremely lucky to find a fantastic job near liberty-minded people like the individuals in the Free State Project. Until we meet, illegitimi non carborundum—don’t let the bastards grind you down.

Your friend in freedom,
Brian Anderson

yuberries

Quoting Mises? Make him a regular blogger now pls! :0
Keith

I am pretty sure most on the city council consider a suggestion to sell the common as laughable.

But the first part of your article was correct. Some FSP movers and a much larger group of non-FSP movers are causing most of the problems at the common on purpose. Many of them are just trying to have some fun. Others are out to get a reaction. Some of them are high or drunk and may not really know what is even going on very well.
http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

The answer is simple: hold Central Sq. in common. Privatizing it will only make the tyranny worse.
Keith

I think Julia is correct about privatizing it.
Koosh comander

The land already is private, it belongs to the incorporated community known as the city of keene.
http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

Koosh, that's kind of my point. Owned in common does *not* equate to "owned by the state".

Just wait until the square is owned by a different absentee landlord who might be even worse than the state.

I'd also like to know what the town's other residents feel about your privatization proposal.
dylan r

Have you ever been to New England Brian?
Brian

Julia, I agree with your statement that "owned in common does *not* equate to 'owned by the state'". Since the gazebo area is accessible to everyone, it's simply 'common property', which, as I stated before, mean it's own by no one and leads to the tragedy of the commons we now witness. However, it's untrue that privatizing it will "make the tyranny worse". Keeping the land public will put it indefinitely in the hands of a pseudo-democracy whereas private owners will need to pay to upkeep the land, property, etc. with their own money.

And, to 'dylan r', no. I have not been to New England. The closest I've lived is in New York.