The status of street art / are requirements to obtain government authorization a good thing?

Art war??? This is laughable.

(1) The street artist is NOT the public. If any individual has the right to put something on common property without permission of the other owners, then he/she has appropriated it for his/her personal use, whatever you may think. It is not clear to me why I should prefer allowing street artists to appropriate my interest in the common property rather than allowing an elected body to regulate its use.

(2) I know you didn't use the word "appropriating" because you are not thinking clearly. Imo allowing unauthorized street art would be an attempt to appropriate common property.

(3) Why do you think an art war might not turn into an actual war? Gang wars are fought for trivial matters like this.

(4) Basic rules to avoid actual physical contact! Rules enacted by whom? Rules enforced by whom??? Allowing street artists to appropriate public space is essentially allowing them to make up their own rules. Suppose I claim that there is a rule against individuals creating personal artwork on public space.

(5) There is not the slightest reason to think that a "spontaneous order" would develop in a densely populated complex society like the US. Your claim here is pushing naivety to unimagined heights. The process by which your "basic rules" were established would constitute a political process which you claim to superfluous.

Cum libertate
MIt Freiheit
So svobodoy.

Les

Art war??? This is laughable.

In the many years that Starchild and I have pelted each other with words, I have found "street art" the topic that elicits the most reaction from pro-con folks. Well, maybe not, come to think of "sit-lie," that's a good one too.

Maybe it all boils down to those who have the time to spend putting paint to walls (thanks to my tax dollars?) and those who have the votes to fine them or put them in jail for vandalism. Only way to solve this conundrum, in my view is to invert the situation by removing free time from the painters (cut off whatever ways they acquire the time to paint walls) and garnering votes to make public painting on walls legal. PS, good luck on either.

OK, gotta go back to work now. No more time to paint...I mean, post.

Marcy

Les,

  My responses interspersed with your remarks below...

(1) The street artist is NOT the public. If any individual has the right to put something on common property without permission of the other owners, then he/she has appropriated it for his/her personal use, whatever you may think. It is not clear to me why I should prefer allowing street artists to appropriate my interest in the common property rather than allowing an elected body to regulate its use.

  Street artists are members of the public just like everyone else. Apparently you favor an approach that is more of a democracy (the majority regulates the commons however it pleases), while I favor an approach more in keeping with a republic (the majority's control of the commons is tempered by the rights of minorities, including individuals). Just as the proper approach to political free speech is not to ban the Nazis marching on public streets in Skokie, Illinois, but rather to have a bigger counter-demonstration, the proper approach to street art free speech is not to ban it, but rather for the majority (if the majority doesn't find something tasteful) to put more resources into shaping the commons to suit its own tastes.

(2) I know you didn't use the word "appropriating" because you are not thinking clearly. Imo allowing unauthorized street art would be an attempt to appropriate common property.

  I didn't use the term because I don't feel it's accurate in this context. Street art does not "appropriate your interest" in the commons, because it does not restrict your rights or your ability to use the commons in any way. In fact giving you as an individual the ability to contribute street art does just the opposite.

(3) Why do you think an art war might not turn into an actual war? Gang wars are fought for trivial matters like this.

  Gang wars are a good analogy, because they tend to occur in the context of various government prohibitions. Competing street artists are more likely to come to violence when street art is criminalized.

(4) Basic rules to avoid actual physical contact! Rules enacted by whom? Rules enforced by whom??? Allowing street artists to appropriate public space is essentially allowing them to make up their own rules. Suppose I claim that there is a rule against individuals creating personal artwork on public space.

  In the present context, rules enacted/enforced by government. Just less restrictive ones than at present. Guidelines designed to avoid conflict and minimize harm, such as the rule that says when two vehicles arrive at an intersection at the same time, the person on the right has the right-of-way, rather than rules attempting to codify methods or restrict content. For instance, there could be a rule allowing persons or groups a certain amount of time to finish an incomplete work prior to it being covered over by another work, a rule against art that poses a significant threat to safety or significantly impedes other uses of the commons, etc. I'd have government stay out of the picture except when conflicts arose or someone complained to them about violations of these basic rules.

(5) There is not the slightest reason to think that a "spontaneous order" would develop in a densely populated complex society like the US. Your claim here is pushing naivety to unimagined heights. The process by which your "basic rules" were established would constitute a political process which you claim to superfluous.

  Why do you think spontaneous order depends upon having low population density or a simple society, and how do you square this with Wikipedia's description of the term? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order )

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

An art war is laughable. Well, maybe. But this discussion illustrates the principle that there does have to be a government and there does have to be an enforcement mechanism (that is, a police department). There can be an argument on how to keep government properly limited, but not on whether there should me a government.

Art war??? This is laughable.

Marcy,

  People don't "acquire" free time. It exists naturally whenever it is not filled with other activities. I think the corollary to somehow cutting off the free time of street artists would be somehow cutting off the votes of people who want to criminalize them. However I don't see how taking either time or votes away from specific groups of people would be compatible with libertarianism.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

Excuse me, I should have said "complementary measure", not "corollary".

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

Starchild:

(1) An individual of the public is not the public and cannot make up rules at will. Your answer makes no sense whatsoever. You're whining about the majority imposing its will on the street artist, but you seem to have so qualms about the minority (an individual) imposing his/her will on the every one.

Besides how do you know there was not already a rule in effect not to embellish/deface the public space??? You never mentioned whether the street artist had politely and respectfully asked if such a rule was in effect PRIOR to putting his artwork on the public space.

(2) Street art does of course appropriate my interest in the commons. And it restricts my right to enjoy uncluttered common space.

Also what right of the street artist is being violated by forbidding unauthorized street art?

(3) "Gang wars tend to occur in the context of various government prohibitions". Oh rubbish! Much of what gangs do is engage in ordinary crimes. Competing artists are more likely to come to violence when street art is criminalized!!! Are you really such an idiot as to believe this??? How on earth do you think this can be true?

(4) So you think there should be rules enacted/enforce by government, just less restrictive than those at present?? This doesn't square with your statements at the beginning of this chain that street artists should be able to embellish/deface the common areas whatever the rules may be. Remember the rules don't forbid artwork on common areas, just UNAUTHORIZED artwork. You began this chain by saying that street artists should be able apply their art without any such authorization. Why do you think that rules less restrictive than at present might not still include a prohibition on UNAUTHORIZED art??

(5) I do not believe that "spontaneous order" can be relied on to resolve every conflict. Spontaneous order can only work when conflicting parties are willing to bargain, negotiate and make compromises. That isn't always the case. If you want a specific artwork on a specific public space and I don't it there and neither of us is willing to bargain, then spontaneous order will not resolve the issue.

And don't give me any blabber and slobber out me or the majority or the government imposing our will on the street artist. The street artist is imposing his/her will on everyone else.

Les

Les,

    My responses interspersed with your remarks below...

(1) The street artist is NOT the public. If any individual has the right to put something on common property without permission of the other owners, then he/she has appropriated it for his/her personal use, whatever you may think. It is not clear to me why I should prefer allowing street artists to appropriate my interest in the common property rather than allowing an elected body to regulate its use.

    Street artists are members of the public just like everyone else. Apparently you favor an approach that is more of a democracy (the majority regulates the commons however it pleases), while I favor an approach more in keeping with a republic (the majority's control of the commons is tempered by the rights of minorities, including individuals). Just as the proper approach to political free speech is not to ban the Nazis marching on public streets in Skokie, Illinois, but rather to have a bigger counter-demonstration, the proper approach to street art free speech is not to ban it, but rather for the majority (if the majority doesn't find something tasteful) to put more resources into shaping the commons to suit its own tastes.

(2) I know you didn't use the word "appropriating" because you are not thinking clearly. Imo allowing unauthorized street art would be an attempt to appropriate common property.

    I didn't use the term because I don't feel it's accurate in this context. Street art does not "appropriate your interest" in the commons, because it does not restrict your rights or your ability to use the commons in any way. In fact giving you as an individual the ability to contribute street art does just the opposite.

(3) Why do you think an art war might not turn into an actual war? Gang wars are fought for trivial matters like this.

    Gang wars are a good analogy, because they tend to occur in the context of various government prohibitions. Competing street artists are more likely to come to violence when street art is criminalized.

(4) Basic rules to avoid actual physical contact! Rules enacted by whom? Rules enforced by whom??? Allowing street artists to appropriate public space is essentially allowing them to make up their own rules. Suppose I claim that there is a rule against individuals creating personal artwork on public space.

    In the present context, rules enacted/enforced by government. Just less restrictive ones than at present. Guidelines designed to avoid conflict and minimize harm, such as the rule that says when two vehicles arrive at an intersection at the same time, the person on the right has the right-of-way, rather than rules attempting to codify methods or restrict content. For instance, there could be a rule allowing persons or groups a certain amount of time to finish an incomplete work prior to it being covered over by another work, a rule against art that poses a significant threat to safety or significantly impedes other uses of the commons, etc. I'd have government stay out of the picture except when conflicts arose or someone complained to them about violations of these basic rules.

(5) There is not the slightest reason to think that a "spontaneous order" would develop in a densely populated complex society like the US. Your claim here is pushing naivety to unimagined heights. The process by which your "basic rules" were established would constitute a political process which you claim to superfluous.

    Why do you think spontaneous order depends upon having low population density or a simple society, and how do you square this with Wikipedia's description of the term? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order)

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

There is a question as to whether collectivist police are a satisfactory device.
This was illustrated during the America's Cup. Most collectivist police we're absolutely not qualified to deal with any aspect of the event, except the most mundane. Even then, inappropriate and out-of-place in combat boots and fatigues, those functions were better done by more qualified people, with more appropriate dress.
Ultimately, collectivist police departments will be enforcing collectivism, and perhaps worse, the status quo. Enforcement of the status quo terminates progress. This was seen from AD 300 to AD 1,500, 1,200 years of Dark Ages at the hands of the Holy Roman "police".
In this country, there is a role for government's enforcement to prohibit lynchings. Otherwise, it is the role of the citizen to provide security for himself. But today, welfare for everyone has come to be expected.
I'm only surprised to find calls for welfare on a libertarian discussion list. Frankly, I'd rather give money to drug addicts for their drugs than give it to collectivists for their police.
It can be argued that addicts have a medical condition, but capable people who want free security at the expense of others are lazy opportunists.

Les,

  I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on my previous point about you advocating a democratic rather than a republican model. Further thoughts interspersed with your comments below.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

Starchild:

(1) An individual of the public is not the public and cannot make up rules at will. Your answer makes no sense whatsoever. You're whining about the majority imposing its will on the street artist, but you seem to have so qualms about the minority (an individual) imposing his/her will on the every one.

Besides how do you know there was not already a rule in effect not to embellish/deface the public space??? You never mentioned whether the street artist had politely and respectfully asked if such a rule was in effect PRIOR to putting his artwork on the public space.

  *Of course* there are currently rules in effect. I believe those rules are largely unjust and immoral.

(2) Street art does of course appropriate my interest in the commons. And it restricts my right to enjoy uncluttered common space.

Also what right of the street artist is being violated by forbidding unauthorized street art?

  You don't really explain how street art appropriates your interest in the commons. "Uncluttered" common space? If you're talking about sculptures and such, then your comment makes sense, but paint is not "clutter". Even in the case of sculpture though, I don't think the "right" to enjoy the commons without sculpture has any more precedence or validity than the right to enjoy the commons with sculpture

  I believe the commons belong to the people, not to governments. If government totally controls what can go there, or be done there, *that* would be an appropriation or taking of individual rights to use of the space! If a use of the commons still allows others to use the space, it should be allowed. If there are conflicting uses, then as I said there should be some basic rules established to minimize conflicts and adjudicate how they are handled when they arise. These rules should allow a majority to get its way most of the time in most places, but definitely not allow a majority to block all unwanted expression by a minority. If a hypothetical split is 70% - 30%, then a fair system would allow the minority to get its way roughly 30% of the time or in 30% of the commons (in terms of desirability of various spaces for expression, not just raw land area).

  Please note that I'm talking here about the commons in developed areas such as urban and suburban streets, parks and plazas -- in wilderness areas, I think the right to enjoy pristine wilderness does have a greater degree of precedence, largely because factoring consideration of the needs of other species into the equation tilts it in favor of minimizing human impact to such areas.

(3) "Gang wars tend to occur in the context of various government prohibitions". Oh rubbish! Much of what gangs do is engage in ordinary crimes. Competing artists are more likely to come to violence when street art is criminalized!!! Are you really such an idiot as to believe this??? How on earth do you think this can be true?

  You mentioned "gang wars". That is different from "ordinary crimes". How can you as a libertarian *not* recognize that gang wars are more likely to occur when peaceful actions are criminalized?

(4) So you think there should be rules enacted/enforce by government, just less restrictive than those at present?? This doesn't square with your statements at the beginning of this chain that street artists should be able to embellish/deface the common areas whatever the rules may be. Remember the rules don't forbid artwork on common areas, just UNAUTHORIZED artwork. You began this chain by saying that street artists should be able apply their art without any such authorization. Why do you think that rules less restrictive than at present might not still include a prohibition on UNAUTHORIZED art??

  The kind of rules I'm talking about would not be of the general form, "If you want to paint something on a sidewalk, go fill out a form to present a proposal to the SF Art Commission, and if they like your idea, they can -- after various bureaucratic delays -- approve it." I'm talking about rules of the general form, "If you want to paint something on a public sidewalk, go ahead and do it, with the caveats that the project must be completed in a reasonable manner so as to minimize inconvenience or safety hazards to the public, and that your work will be subject to others painting over your work or erasing it a given time after it is finished."

(5) I do not believe that "spontaneous order" can be relied on to resolve every conflict. Spontaneous order can only work when conflicting parties are willing to bargain, negotiate and make compromises. That isn't always the case. If you want a specific artwork on a specific public space and I don't it there and neither of us is willing to bargain, then spontaneous order will not resolve the issue.

  I think the way such situations would tend to play out in the absence of government coercion if two opposing parties feel strongly about such an issue is that eventually they would get tired of continually repainting work and continually erasing it, and come to some sort of accommodation, such as "You can have this here three months out of the year and we'll leave it alone during that period if you leave the space alone the rest of the time." Or any other myriad potential negotiated compromises or creative solutions.

And don't give me any blabber and slobber out me or the majority or the government imposing our will on the street artist. The street artist is imposing his/her will on everyone else.

  I don't give blabber and slobber. :slight_smile: Street artists are not the only ones who want street art. You're ignoring the people like myself who may not do much or any street art but tend to appreciate seeing it.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

John,

  I'm not arguing for welfare, only that to the extent that when governments provide it, they should do so on a non-discriminatory basis. But perhaps you were not referring to my comments; I'm actually not sure where you see this thread touching on welfare, unless you mean the "welfare" of protection by government police. Come to think about it, that probably is what you meant. But I'm not sure where you draw the line, and how you would justify that line philosophically speaking. How could it be government's legitimate duty to prevent lynchings, but not to otherwise provide security (e.g. from muggings)?

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

Starchild,Yer dealing with a different world view. This difference was illustrated for the world to see and it is unlikely anything you can say will change it, but I am each time surprised to find it here in a libertarian forum.
"The West Berlin side of the wall had artwork completely covering the wall, while the East Berlin side was kept blank"

"Painting had been prohibited on the east side of the wall during the Cold War, so not a lot of new art has been added since the 1990s"
Berlin Wall graffiti art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starchild,Yes, I am speaking of that welfare program.
Welfare recipients are welfare recipients, no one is owed anything at the expense of others; someone wanting police to make them feel secure is no better than someone wanting drugs to make them feel high.
Once we see the police sycophants on a par with dope-fiends, we can begin a more rational analysis of public policy. We can go directly to the degree we will assist mothers in the production of the next generation...the so-called welfare moms.

Starchild,

Oh, I now see your point. Focusing on the subject at hand, your point is that welfare should be doled out without prejudice; i.e., I should pay taxes without prejudice as to who wants my money. I now understand, but not subscribe. I have enumerated my requirements for supporting any idea. I would not support expanding welfare, and therefore government reach, for any reason. Any Tax Day topic I would "vote" in favor of would have to decrease, not increase, taxes.

Marcy

Starchild,Here is an interesting article about street art and its importance in a healthy society to signal critical themes and give life to the public spaces. Its absence is a barometer of society in descent.
I've wanted a cartoon of time-travelers, finding Neanderthal police arresting and cuffing Neanderthal taggers. In the background, workers are scrubbing the "vandalism" from the cave walls.
Of course the time-travelers are sickened by the sight and by the myopic ignorance of the element it represents back home.

Starchild,The difference is orders of magnitude between a lynch-mob and a mugger.Plus the nature of the crime is entirely different. A lynch mob is the essence of government gone bad, for which it should be responsible in its own restraint, in the same way it should be responsible for the restraint of foreign powers' violence against citizens.
A mugger is acting on his singular behalf. When citizens are expected to provide defense among themselves, a dangerous standing army is unnecessary.
But of today's standing armies, the police, are artifacts of the evil war-on-drugs. Most of today's crime is also directly attributable to the same war-on-drugs.
So long as we are in the grips of this heinous evil, there is no possibility of a reasoned approach to the police.

John:

You may have said something here I can actually agree with.

We have too many laws and laws on issues the government has no business in. Everytime a law is passed they have to hire more bureaucrats and police officers to enforce it. If we cut back on the number and scope of laws, then we can solve some of our policing problems.

Starchild,
The difference is orders of magnitude between a lynch-mob and a mugger.
Plus the nature of the crime is entirely different. A lynch mob is the essence of government gone bad, for which it should be responsible in its own restraint, in the same way it should be responsible for the restraint of foreign powers' violence against citizens.

A mugger is acting on his singular behalf. When citizens are expected to provide defense among themselves, a dangerous standing army is unnecessary.

But of today's standing armies, the police, are artifacts of the evil war-on-drugs. Most of today's crime is also directly attributable to the same war-on-drugs.

So long as we are in the grips of this heinous evil, there is no possibility of a reasoned approach to the police.

Thanks. We do agree on what would be a radical reversal of current trends. We can always resume arguing over the degree of the reversal and its fine points.

I'm glad we can agree that government (not "us") has too many laws, including many laws about things that are unquestionably outside the proper scope of government. Every time a law is passed it gives them another excuse to hire more bureaucrats to administer it and police officers to enforce it. (They don't "have" to hire these people, just as police don't have to enforce bad laws -- Congress often passes legislation without providing the funding to go with it, and police officers often use their discretion and "look the other way" when observing something illegal -- when they find it convenient to do so.)

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

John,

  I believe my approach to the police is reasoned. Reason has led me to conclude that the system is largely rotten and the police on the whole are out of control!

  No argument about the pernicious effects of the War on Drugs, but I think the existence of municipal police as standing armies goes back a bit further. In the late 1800s large numbers of police were being used to violently break up and suppress labor strikes. However, a lynch mob often wasn't the government, but a random group of vigilantes. Conversely, muggings and other lesser crimes aren't always just the work of lone individuals either. I'm still not seeing a bright philosophical line dividing the two categories.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))