[alentist]

> the Bay Area

> libertarian paradise

What a strange notion. San Francisco has some of the most paternalistic laws in the US, courtesy of its board of supervisors. Some of them even wanted to ban corporate cafeterias, an issue which returned last year:

https://sfist.com/2019/07/22/watered-down-version-of-sfs-tec...

To pin the blame for these problems on libertarians, of all people, is the height of absurdity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_in_the_San_Francisco_...

See also:

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/OPINION-San-Francisc...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Nanny-state-or-...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-nov-02-la-fi-ha...

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic...

https://reason.org/policy-study/us-metropolitan-area-economi...

> zoning laws

Where did you get the bizarre idea that their zoning laws are in any way “libertarian” or “individualist”?

https://marketurbanismreport.com/blog/san-franciscos-regulat...

[mixmastamyk]

You may be reacting to the buzzwords rather than the broad strokes. While they do have many nanny-esque laws in the area, you'll find European cities do better on the aspects mentioned.

[alentist]

I’m not sure what this has to do with my comment.

[mixmastamyk]

It appears you saw the word libertarian and got caught up in a blue/red debate rather than contemplate what was written.

[alentist]

> got caught up in a blue/red debate

Huh?

> rather than contemplate what was written

That’s exactly what I did?

Do you actually have anything substantive to say?

[mixmastamyk]

Perhaps reading the thread again will help.

[danans]

>> the Bay Area >> libertarian paradise

> What a strange notion. San Francisco has some of the most paternalistic laws in the US

Not sure if you are aware but the Bay area is much bigger than just San Francisco. San Francisco isn't even the biggest city.

There are very libertarian subcultures of the broader Bay Area, including in San Francisco, but most notably among the wealthy and business owners of Silicon Valley.

[alentist]

Not sure if you’re aware, but many of the links I shared are about the Bay Area as a whole.

> libertarian subcultures

I’m sure there are lots of subcultures. What does this have to do with who is actually governing?

[danans]

> I’m sure there are lots of subcultures. What does this have to do with who is actually governing?

A whole lot. Look no further than the recent ballot initiative won by Uber and Lyft against classifying drivers as full employees, or similarly failed ballot initiative to remove prop 13 from commercial property taxes. The direction of both results was very much in the libertarian direction.

[alentist]

> A whole lot.

So, since the Bay Area has socialist subcultures [0], and they actually have power [1], will you say it is socialist in governance? Or are you applying a double standard?

> The direction of both results was very much in the libertarian direction.

Those two particular results, sure. What about all the other results and legislation I referenced?

[0] https://dsasf.org

[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/11/13/young-democratic-soci...

[vkou]

1. The SFBA does not begin and end with San Francisco. You're free to pick and choose among its many, many neighbouring municipalities, none of which happen to be governed by the San Francisco city council.

2. These are fantastic examples of measures that at worst, mildly inconvenience the most affluent members of its society, and at best are harmless social signaling of issues that don't matter.

It speaks more about your priorities when you point out things like happy meal toy bans, while ignoring the insanity of having an entire city that is completely unaffordable to the people working in that McDonalds, or a healthcare system that completely fails the most regular customers[1] to that McDonalds.

As for zoning laws, they are absolutely libertarian, in the sense that the people who have made it are using them to pull the ladder up behind them. What's the point of owning property, and having wealth and political influence if you then don't spend that influence to protect the value of your property?

Land, in large part, derives its value from how difficult it is to acquire. I could hardly think of a more land-owner friendly system than one with extremely onerous zoning and construction requirements. If you're feeling pressured by this, you are one of the have-nots (whose life in a libertarian-paradise-for-the-haves is not that great - see my original post on what being a have-not gets you in the SFBA.)

[1] I'm referring to, of course, poorer people.

[alentist]

1. Many of the links I shared are about the Bay Area as a whole.

2. Here's the definition of zoning:

> Zoning is a method of urban planning in which a municipality or other tier of government divides land into areas called zones, each of which has a set of regulations for new development that differs from other zones.

Here's the definition of libertarianism:

> Libertarianism is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.

In what way is government dictating that you can't build more housing on your property "libertarian"? You're pulling some desperate mental gymnastics.

> As for zoning laws, they are absolutely libertarian, in the sense that the people who have made it are using them to pull the ladder up behind them.

Literal nonsense. That's not what "libertarian" means.

[vkou]

> Literal nonsense. That's not what "libertarian" means.

That is exactly what libertarian means in practice. The ideology, when implemented in a democratic society has no mechanism to combat this kind of regulatory capture. It becomes just a shorthand for "People with money get to keep it, people without get to pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

Autonomy from government is only welcome by actual libertarians when it comes to autonomy from obligations towards government - but reliance on government is sought out when it comes to protection of their wealth by government.

Stop looking at symbolic virtue-signaling gestures, and start looking at what policies actually affect real people's lives, and why those policies are in place. The SFBA is a great place to live if you are self-reliant (wealthy), and can afford its smorgasbord of world-class private services, for anything from education to transportation to healthcare, to legal work, to housing. It very quickly becomes a far-from-great place to live if you have to result to public options for any of those things - because they range from either 'on life support' to 'non-existent'.