Richard,
I previously mentioned the example of Pompeii, where graffiti in the well-preserved Roman ruins shed important light on the customs of the city's inhabitants. The older the graffiti, the more value is generally added. Consider an Egyptian tomb discovered with hieroglyphics, versus one discovered without hieroglyphics. Just a couple days ago I was listening to a segment on the radio about the history of Angel Island, where Asian (mostly Chinese) immigrants were processed. A few years ago, buildings which had been used as army barracks were going to be torn down, when a ranger happened to notice the presence of graffiti which turned out to be poems, notes, etc., scrawled by immigrant detainees from around the turn of the last century. As a result, the barracks were not torn down, but instead are being turned into a museum. Show me virtually anything man-made with graffiti older than about 50 years old on it, and I'll show you something that is more valuable (not to mention more interesting) than it would be without the mark-up.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
See below.
From: Starchild
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 8:28 PM
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: PrinciplesRichard,
Only in the short term does graffiti reduce value. In the long term it generally enhances it. So unless a piece of property is expected to be returned to the taxpayers in the near future...
Show me some proof of this.
I also notice that you are still writing of "defacing" and "destroying" as if they are synonyms.
Good observation. See these definitions for deface...
• To mar or spoil the appearance or surface of; disfigure.
• To impair the usefulness, value, or influence of.The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
• to destroy or mar the face or surface of
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996
and see these synonyms. The antonyms are also interesting...
Main Entry:
defacePart of Speech:
verbDefinition:
mutilateSynonyms:
blemish, contort, damage, deform, demolish, destroy, dilapidate, disfigure, distort, foul up, gum up, harm, hash up, impair, injure, louse up, mangle, mar, mess up, misshape, muck up, obliterate, ruin, scratch, screw up, spoil, sully, tarnish, trash, vandalize, wreckAntonyms:
adorn, beautify, deck, decorate, embellish, fix, freshen, mend, repair, restoreSource:
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>Michael,
I guess I haven't been clear enough if you think we all can agree to your statement! I _do_ think that defacing Govt. property is a rights violation.
See my post, still in the thread below, where I said "Destroying something which is stolen is itself a crime." In particular, it reduces the value of any remuneration which may be due to those from whom the property was stolen in the first place.
Rich
From: dredelstein@threeminutetherapy.com
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 3:54 PM
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: PrinciplesMarcy,
All I'm saying, with which I think we all can agree, is defacing Govt property is not a rights violation.
Best, Michael
From: Amarcy D. Berry
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 11:58 PM
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Principles [was: Meeting Room]Mike,
Of course that is not what Rich is saying, most to the contrary.
And I agree with Rich that as a political party, we would do a great
job scaring away voters with talk of such wanton violence.Marcy
>
> Rich,
>
> Thank you for your correction, you make a valid point.
>
> A more accurate statement would have been, "it's not a violation of
rights to use force against Govt property." This phrasing does more
clearly convey my meaning.
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: Richard Newell
> To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Re: Principles [was: Meeting Room]
>
> Michael,
>
> I believe it is a misleading generalization to tell Clay "it's
philosophically ok to use force against the Govt."
>
> You make a leap of logic in going from the non-aggression principle
(NAP) to "it's philosophically ok to use force against the Govt"
Just because "it is not OK to initiate aggression against a non-
aggressor" does not logically lead to "it is OK to use force against
an aggressor". Perhaps you believe that for other reasons, but this
can not derived logically from the NAP alone.
>
> The NAP is just one ethical imperative; it does not exclude the
possiblity of there being others. The NAP allows for the full gamut
of possiblities: from libertarians who believe no force is ever OK
(pacifists), to libertarians that believe force against the
government may sometimes be justified, to libertarians who think it
is ok to use force against the government; depending on what other
axioms one adopts.
>
> We don't believe in collectives, therefore it is false to direct
your use of force against "the government." If you are going to
attack "the government" for remuneration, or retribution (or whatever
philosophy you are operating under), exactly which individuals are
you going to use force against? What are their exact crimes, and how
much force is justified? Execution of a petty bureaucrat may be out
of proportion to their crime. Is a government road worker guilty?
(If so, which of us is not guilty of anything?) Is what Timothy
McVeigh did OK, or was he a criminal/terrorist? It was a government
building filled with government employees. (I'm not talking about in
the movies, now; I mean in the real world. That said, "V" is a great
movie!)
>
> What process are you going to use to decide what force to use, and
against whom, to ensure some semblance of justice? Or, is everyone
to set their own standards; some slash tires, some "tag" buildings,
some blow them up, some use vigilante 'justice'? I'm not talking
about in some Libertopia, I mean here in today's world. If you say
that "it's philosophically ok to use force against the Govt," I think
you have the responsibility to answer some of these questions.
>
> Even if you still conclude after overcoming those issues that it OK
to blow up or deface government buildings or flatten police tires,
what is the purpose in wanton destruction? These inanimate objects
are not guilty of any crimes. Even if, for a moment, I allow that
government property is unowned (a position which I don't really
accept), I fail to see the advantage of "homesteading" it by
destroying it. If I came across some unowned land in the wilderness,
I don't think libertarian philosophy says I can or should spread salt
or poison on it so that no one else can use it in the future. One
would have to have some pretty screwed-up values to achieve enhanced
utility by doing so. One would really be showing their hand if,
after doing so, they abandoned the destroyed property. (The opposite
of Johnny Appleseed? A wandering destroyer of unowned property.)
>
> Even from an purely anarchist viewpoint, I would consider the
government building not as unowned, but as [proceeds from] stolen
property that needs to be returned to the original owners (i.e.,
remuneration). In practice, this would probably mean selling it and
using the proceeds to reduce the debt, or something similar (a whole
other question for libertarian philosophers to answer). The free
market could put it to some productive use, as opposed to whatever
the government bureaucrats are using it for. Destroying something
which is stolen is itself a crime.
>
> Finally, according to David Nolan, the reason for the LP pledge was
to provide some immunity to claims that Libertarians were proposing
the use of force against the state. In this discussion you are
taking the NAP in exactly the opposite direction of this original
intent. And, in a pragmatic sense, I contend that Libertarian
candidates will not enhance either their electoral success or their
success in educating the public by stating such things as "it is OK
to use force against the government". I am certain that it would
actually be counterproductive, both in the sense of hurting the
movement, and also in the sense Tom states of generating a backlash
and more government oppression (increased taxes, loss of civil
liberties, and etc.).
>
> Just saying it is OK to use force against the government is clearly
not a very satisfying answer, and I doubt most (L)libertarians would
even agree with a blanket statement like that.
>
> Rich
>
> From: dredelstein@...
> To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:47 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Principles [was: Meeting Room]
>
> Tom,
>
> You may be correct, it may be counterproductive. However, Clay is
asking about principles, not pragmatics.
>
> Philosophically, we can take our lead from the libertarian non-
aggression principle (NAP): it's wrong to initiate aggression against
a non-aggressor. I would conclude from this it's philosophically ok
to use force against the Govt and destroy Govt property, since the
state is nothing but an aggressor.
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: Tom Yedwab
> To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Meeting Room
>
> I would think this is counterproductive, both because
> it wastes money that has already been wrung from
> taxpayers (causing the government to go and raise
> taxes to compensate) and because it gives the
> government an excuse to tighten security and violate
> the people's rights further.
>
> There are many peaceful ways to obstruct the
> functioning of government without resorting to
> violence. How about we all stand in front of a gov't
> building handing out US flag pins so that every single
> person walking through the door sets off the metal
> detector? That would slow things down a bit. I'm more
> of a pacifist so I'd lean towards less dangerous
> measures.
>
> Tom
>
> --- brokenladdercalendar <lpsf@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > P.S. Why exactly is it that the Libertarian party
> > is against doing
> > things by force? Like what's wrong with bombing an
> > empty government
> > building and flattening some Police car tires? Not
> > saying I'd ever
> > have the guts to do something like that, because I
> > don't wanna spend
> > the rest of my life in jail, but philosophically
> > where does that stem
> > from?
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>