Perspective. I see it more like the people in power chose to keep the wall under the bridge blank because they could impose that will on others. The graffiti artist chose to ignore this, first knowing the wall works just as well with artwork painted on it (it’s not destructive) and chose to exercise their freedom. The graffiti artist is unhinged from the chains Of central control. I think all publicly owned property is fair game, unless the artwork takes away from the functionality of the surfaces like in the case of going over windows , etch etc. I value freedom over mob/majority rule, therefor the majority of what people prefer should not be imposed on everyone, in every case, especially in the case of something as unobtrusive as artwork. This concept is very libertarian in nature and under the extremist philosophy of libertarianism that I subscribe to, (Anarcho-capitalism) it’s justified to paint a burner on a publicly owned wall so long as ”the public” (government) is involuntary in nature, and forced upon the population.
Furthermore, not understanding the basic concept of private property which I myself was 100% guilty of, painting on private property was an extension of of that concept.
I no longer believe it’s ok to paint on private property, and always justified this to myself under the false premise that these large corporations were somehow violating my rights, and this was an appropriate level of retaliation for doing so. This is why most writers stop at large businesses, and will never paint on “personal property” like cars, and private homes. They feel justified in painting on ”private property” like a freight train, or a wall owned by Starbucks, or rich person’s property who is believed to be somehow exploiting society. This justification is 100% wrong to me in retrospect knowing what I know now. Even so, it still falls 100% under extremist libertarian left philosophy (Anarcho-communist). Their false assumption that all wealth is the result of exploitation justifies their non recognition of property rights beyond the realm of just personal property.
I conclude that this gives me no right to smash a Starbucks window in a riot, or paint on something that isn’t publicly owned (unless in the rare case that Starbucks actually did something that directly violated me).
Under this line of thinking, Murder, assault, and even child rape is a valid action so long as it’s legal?
Just trying to point out a super important, and obvious concept you’re ignoring to validate you argument against freedom. Morality is a separate concept than legality, and supersedes legality in prosperous communities/societies . When this concept is adhered to by a society, and used as a foundation for its legal system the society benefits. Where this concept is violated, society/humans will alway suffer. Outside of self defense, you never have the right to violate someone’s ownership over every living cell in their body in any way. This natural law is the foundation of all peaceful human existence, whether it’s acknowledged in writing on legal documents or not.
This is the law of nature, and so long as this concept is the only one adhered to humans live as animals. On top of this natural law, humans had to live by the non-aggression principal to transcend nature and become something more than animals.
For example let’s say it’s the year 12019 BC, and we are naked in the woods living like animals. If You were to pick up a stick from the ground and fashion it into a useful tool like a spear, you would be able to take down larger game. Without the natural human concept of natural law the stronger would just take that stick from you as their own, meaning it would be of no use for someone to exploit a natural resource and transform it into a useful tool. The incentive does not exist, therefore you may as well be a gorilla, who has no understanding of personal property. The most dominant gorilla always wins, but as a whole, living thing n gorilla society is inferior.
The same concepts taken further allows for incentives of agriculture, for if the people who develop the land, and plant the seeds have no right to its bounty, there is zero incentive to plant crops. Sure, some rough humans may still decide to violate, a group of bandits for example may come and seize the harvest for themselves, this is why use of force in defense of property is valid, just like defending your own life.
Without adherence to libertarian concepts, you would be living in North Korea, Communist China, Nazi Germany, etc. Totalitarianism is not a result of genetic inferiority, or lack of resources, it’s an unwillingness, or inability of the governed to defend their natural rights.
You live in a free* society and constitution democracy, this sort of supports my point. If you lived closer to a totalitarian society and could still say life is good, (privileged class of communist party members etc.) that still wouldn’t change the fact that the more free a society is, the better that society is to live in overall.
Take a look in the political compass thread, we generally don’t like rules that violate our rights. Very few of us even approach the center of the totalitarian/libertarian axis. Most of us want less rules, and fall closer to the libertarian end of that spectrum. This is obvious to me, and what I expect. If you’re still having trouble understanding that you may want to rethink this concept.
Dude, you seriously have no morals, or don’t see the value in them? Might makes right, meanwhile you’re in a Relatively weak country with abundant resources. So it’s just going to be oh well if those resources are taken? Or let’s say your neighbor is politically connected enough to seize your home from you, you’d be OK with that because welcome to the jungle. I seriously doubt that.
