The latest controversy on liberty twitter has been indirectly in response to the idea of hostile architecture:
Tho Bishop gave his take, followed by Dave Smith:
Opinions on this tend to fall into one of two camps: either everything the state does is an unlawful aggression, so they have no right to remove unwanted individuals from public spaces, or keep the junkies away from my kids.
While the full libertarian analysis is rather complicated, involving how we even begin to understand the idea of a “public” space, I want to focus on a different aspect. Assuming everyone would prefer homeless people not pass out in playgrounds, how should we feel about the state using force to remove them?
We might ask a similar question about border control. If everyone would prefer that only some people be allowed to enter into the country and that some measure of security and screening be involved in immigration (the view of an overwhelming majority), are we okay with government doing that?
A little further afield, we might also ask about states like Texas making vaccine mandates illegal. If we all think the federal government has no right to coerce “private” companies into mandating medical treatments for their employees, is it okay for the states to use government fiat to overrule that edict?
For me, I have a hard time being bothered by a state actor doing something I would just as soon have a private actor do. Yes the government is going to be less efficient. Yes, it is going to take every opportunity to expand it’s power beyond what it has been granted. Yes, it is going to use excessive violence to make its otherwise licit responsibilities easier for itself.
But it I took my kids to a private playground, I would except the owner to keep it free from vagrants. If the state is going to assume that role on public property, and if it does so without using excess force or violence, then isn’t it actually just doing what it is supposed to?
If I would hire private security to keep trespassers off my land, should I be bothered if the state regulates immigration the way I would have private actors do it? If I would seek remedy from private arbitration or courts to stop my employer from forcing me to get a vaccine to keep my job, does it make sense to be butthurt about the state courts or legislatures taking on that responsibility?
If we actually lived in a minarchist state, which is essentially what this would be, it would be the chief topic of conversation. Shouldn’t we privatize those public spaces? Shouldn’t employers be free to contract with their employees however they want to? Shouldn’t we be concerned that this minimal state will grow into a more oppressive one?
But we don’t live in that state. We are facing the most severe threats to life and liberty in living memory from an increasingly totalitarian government. If Florida wants to overstep its constitutional authority to fight that regime, should our priority be getting upset with Florida?
If you are under fire, you take cover behind what is available. You can worry about how you feel about your shield when the bullets stop coming. When anarcho-tyranny is burning down your neighborhood, you don’t complain when the police actually try to stop them.
This does not mean you endorse state action. It doesn’t mean you grant legitimacy to their immoral power grabbing. Governor Abbott doesn’t suddenly become one of the good guys any more than the local cop is magically transformed by thwarting a robbery. But in those rare cases when government actually secures your rights? When it protects your liberty like it was nominally designed to do?
It might not be your preferred port, but anything beats capsizing.