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

Discussion
21

Starchild:
I don't remember what point you made about republics versus democracies. A direct democracy is where every adult has a say in the government. An indirect democracy (a republic) is where citizens elect a government to run public affairs. The US is too large to be a direct democracy and must be a republic. Does that do it? If not, you will have to remind what point you made.

(1) You believe the current rules are unjust and immoral. Ok, so why do you think the rules made up by individuals such as the street artist would be any less so???

(2) I don't explain how street art appropriates my interest in the commons.!!! And you don't explain how declining my permission does any harm to the street artist or violates his rights in any way. "I don't think the right to enjoy the commons (A) without sculpture has any more precedence or validity than the right to enjoy the commons (B) with sculpture". But clearly you think that B takes precedence or A. May I remind you that you began this chain by talking about UNAUTHORIZED street art. I may not like AUTHORIZED street art, but at least some public body did approve it.

(3) Yes, the commons belongs to the people, all of them, not just to individual street artists. Government, properly done, is the means by which the people, all of them, make decisions about the commons. If you don't like the rules in effect, then work to vote in rulemakers who will change them.

(4) I have no idea how you think general rules of the type you mentioned would be enforced. Something like this would give rise to endless litigation to convert the general rules to specific rules. And no doubt the street artist would bawl POLICE BRUTALITY at the top of his lungs, if the police tried to enforce any of these rules on him.

(5) Do I ignore people like you who appreciate seeing street art? But then you're ignoring people like me who don't like to see it. Are you saying your "rights" supersede mine???

Les

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

22

Les,

  A direct democracy is not the only form of democracy; there's also representative democracy. That's what many people think the United States is. But the U.S. Constitution actually established a republic, not a representative democracy. The difference as I understand it is that in a democracy, the majority can do whatever it wishes. In a republic, its actions are constrained by the rights of minorities, and thus certain key actions (e.g. amending the Constitution) require super-majorities, and are difficult to do. While this distinction is arguably a matter of degrees, I think it's nevertheless an important one. I was pointing out that with regard to street art, you seem to be arguing for the majority's power to set whatever restrictions it pleases, the rights of people who have a different view than the majority on the proper or most desirable use of the commons be damned. I mention this in part because libertarians typically favor the republic model over the democracy model.

  Responding to your further numbered points below...

(1) I'm not saying individual street artists should make up the rules. I'm saying that freedom of action, not a ban on action, should be the starting point; from there, expression can be prescribed in certain ways in order to make the system as fair as possible for everyone while maximizing individual freedom and individual ability to use the commons for a wide variety of purposes without having to obtain government permission.

(2) You seem to view government bodies making decisions about which street art to allow as legitimate. I do not. It's extends past the proper scope of government of protecting life, liberty, and justly acquired property, into subjective matters of aesthetics and taste. I think they should just set up some broad general rules, and then get out of the way and stay out. I consider a piece of street art created by a random person or group of persons at their own expense to have more legitimacy than a piece of public artwork erected by some government arts commission using stolen taxpayer dollars.

(3) Government, properly done, does not create "one-size-fits-all" rules telling people what they can do in public based on the tastes of the majority. If 50% + 1 of people want to use a space for driving, 25% want to use it for walking, 15% want to use it for bicycling, 5% want to use it for skateboarding, and 5% want to use it for other forms of transportation, these results do *not* mean It does not mean that the space should be used exclusively for driving! They mean that 50% + 1 of people should drive there, 25% should walk, 15% should bicycle, 5% should skateboard, and 5% should do something else. Or, alternately, the space should be reserved for driving 50% of the time, for walking 25% of the time, etc. Or all the non-vehicular uses combining their time slots if desired. Whatever arrangement is established, it should reflect roughly proportionally the range of desire among the public for how to use the space, perhaps weighted by how much the various groups value their preferences and how much time/resources they are willing to put into pushing for more time/space for their preferences.

(4) Enforcement of the rules could be done fairly simply. Persons complying with the guidelines could be granted government protection against interference with their uses, while persons not complying with the guidelines would have no such legal protection. If the courts made it clear that making specific rules is unconstitutional, and consistently tossed out suits challenging this as frivolous, I think the suits would dry up fairly rapidly.

(5) My approach would give people like you the opportunity to express their tastes proportionate to the amount of time/money/resources they are willing to invest in seeking to make the commons reflect their preferences, without fear of being cited and fined or arrested. Your approach seeks to have people who act in accord with the aesthetic approach I favor cited and fined or arrested.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

23

John,

  Thank you for the perfect Berlin Wall example. This may indeed be one of those cases which bears out the famous aphorism that "a picture (or two) is worth a thousand words"!

  It surely is no coincidence that the "free" side of the Wall was covered with graffiti, while the "unfree" side was stark, austere, and unadorned. Freedom is more vibrant, more unplanned, more unauthorized, more cluttered, than tyranny.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

24

I like it... sounds like the kind of cartoon idea I would dream up. :slight_smile:

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

25

Marcy,

  I'm all for individuals having greater control over how their money is spent by government, even when I disagree with their preferences. If you wanted for example to stipulate that your tax money not be used for medical treatment of homeless people sleeping on the streets, but only those who stay in shelters or find homes, since you want living on the streets to be criminalized and discouraged, you should be legally welcome to hold and exercise that prejudice as far as I'm concerned, even though I strongly disagree with it.

  If government takes your money and does not give you as an individual taxpayer any choice in how to discriminatorily allocate it, however, I do *not* support government acting in a discriminatory manner on its own. Since government claims to represent all of us and acts in all of our names, I feel it has an obligation to treat everyone equally and not discriminate on the basis of personal characteristics.

  Would you agree that the SF city government's "graffiti abatement" budget (in the millions of dollars per year if I recall correctly) represents a form of welfare or subsidy to people who don't want graffiti on public streets (enforcing their aesthetics/tastes in part at the expense of people who disagree with them)? If you could eliminate this program and instantly return the money to the taxpayers by pushing a button, would you push it?

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

26

Starchild,A lynch-mob asserts itself as a form of democratic government, in a way no differently than the police asserts itself. Both are acting with a notion of public authority. It is not a stretch to consider as lynchings, the killing of Michael Brown, Eric Gardner, Andy Lopez, Jerimiah Chass, John Crawford, Tamir Rice, and legions more.
The lynch mob would say, "Theyz wasn't actin' right soz theyz got kilt. Each one brought it on hizself. Weez juz doin our job."
The police have said the same thing. And further, some of the public make a claim to an interest in these affairs. Therefore, I can expect the public to pay for the restraint of these bad elements.
In contrast, the mugger has no pretense of public authority, whether acting alone or with others. And the public makes no claim of an interest in the mugger's affairs. Therefore, I cannot expect the public to pay for the restraint of this bad element. Furthermore, I know they can't/won't restrain this bad element in a timely and useful manner.
As an example, in the matter of the murders of Mathew Shepherd, James Byrd, Trayvon Martin and legions more, the victims all suffered the consequences of being unarmed and relying on police who can't/won't protect them.
An overwhelming percentage of murder, rape, battery, and robbery victims were unarmed and relying on police. All were paying for welfare and didn't get it. In addition, everyone else was paying for the welfare of the victims and it was not delivered.
Modern police are the welfare scam of the century, promising welfare to get money from voters, while totally incapable of delivering the welfare they promise.
This is while criminals are protected from consequences by the police. This includes people who have not been convicted of any crime, but this is the actual job of law enforcement...to stop lynchings and conduct the business of the courts.
Without police, there would essentially no crime but there would be no protection of the accused and innocent people would be lynched, without due process.

27

Hi Starchild,

I think the only significant issue you pose here is whether I would discontinue the graffiti abatement program based on my premise that whatever program costs taxpayer money I am against it. Yes, of course -- assuming I could give the vandal a good whipping myself (or hire someone to do it) why would a need a "program?" (I am calling this self-defense, or in defense of civil society, so forget about dredging up the non-aggression pledge).

BTW, I seem to have gotten confused between the two subjects being discussed right now -- 1) vandalism and 2) growth of welfare to include undocumented immigrants. I meant my last post regarding paying taxes without prejudice as to who wants my money to refer to the undocumented immigrant issue.

Anyway, Starchild, we could discuss either subject until the end of time itself, and we would never -- absolutely never -- reach an agreement.

Marcy

28

Yer welcome. I enjoy this issue, it is a litmus test for a totalitarian world view. If we have a free country, people are free to have un-free world-views. It's important to notice this.

29

I made a couple mistakes in he last paragraph, now corrected.

30

Marcy,

  Well, I guess I'm not as pessimistic as you are about our never reaching agreement on these subjects, but the prospect of agreement is not the only reason to engage in intellectual discussion. Of course it goes without say that responding is always voluntary.

  No, getting to whip people against their will, directly or via proxy, is not part of my hypothetical -- although of course such an option is always open to you or anyone else who wishes to incur the normal risks of retaliation or criminal penalties for committing such an assault. My question to you was strictly the traditional libertarian "push a button and end this program?" litmus test, as described here by Murray Rothbard:

"Cleaving to principle means something more than holding high and not contradicting the ultimate libertarian ideal. It also means striving to achieve that ultimate goal as rapidly as is physically possible. In short, the libertarian must never advocate or prefer a gradual, as opposed to an immediate and rapid, approach to his goal. For by doing so, he undercuts the overriding importance of his own goals and principles. And if he himself values his own goals so lightly, how highly will others value them?

In short, to really pursue the goal of liberty, the libertarian must desire it attained by the most effective and speediest means available. It was in this spirit that the classical liberal Leonard E. Read, advocating immediate and total abolition of price and wage controls after World War II, declared in a speech, "If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage and price controls instantaneously, I would put my finger on it and push!"[2]

The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push the button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty. Of course, he knows, too, that such a magic button does not exist, but his fundamental preference colors and shapes his entire strategic perspective."

( http://mises.org/library/case-radical-idealism )

  Separately, I was also wondering whether you would recognize government's graffiti abatement spending as a subsidy or form of welfare to people who don't like street art.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

31

Hi Starchild,

Yes, you are correct. Reaching agreement is not the sole objective of discussions.

Interesting quote from Rothbard. And a typical one too! If there is no "pushbutton" why talk about life as if there were?!? However, the quote is a good retort to my "good whipping" suggestion. There is no efficient way to give anyone an involuntary good whipping these days no more than there is a pushbutton to do away with government programs.

I will try to be more specific regarding your question whether I think the government graffiti abatement spending is a form of subsidy or welfare. No, based on my description of what is subsidy and welfare. Both mean receiving something for nothing. On the other hand, those of us who pay taxes, can assume that we are paying for government spending on graffiti abatement or anything else. If your question entails how taxes are distributed -- what gets funded -- I would say that taxes get distributed according to what the majority of constituents wants. The majority of constituents do not want graffiti, so a portion of the taxes I and others pay go towards cleaning up (the same principle applies to war; a portion of my taxes goes to pay for wars whether I like it or not). No, I do not think graffiti is covered by "rights of the minority," no more than playing loud music after 10 pm is, for example.

Marcy

32

Hmm. Then I guess you Marcy (like Les?) favor a democracy over a republic?

  By your definition of welfare, it seems like AFDC and food stamps might not be welfare either, except in cases where the recipients do not pay any taxes (and I think precious few of us escape taxes altogether!). After all, many people who pay taxes presumably assume that they are paying for government spending on these programs, and a majority of voters apparently support these programs. Certainly a majority of their elected representatives do, or the programs would be terminated already.

Love & Liberty,
                              ((( starchild )))

33

Is this still a libertarian discussion list? Now we have democratic wealth redistribution? Mandatory government approval for public art? Police killing people for having guns? Crackdown on protectors? Whippings?
It's getting a bit ludicrous.

34

Hi Starchild,

I purposefully added the last sentence of my post in anticipation of your "minority rights" argument.

Like anything else in life, welfare also has degrees. In one extreme, we might have Social Security as welfare, because a retired person not contributing to the tax pool receives money without contributing anything; however, that same person may have contributed considerable money in the past when he/she was working. On the other extreme, we might have the welfare queen who may never have done a lick of work in her life.

You reiterate my point. Yes, we have welfare because a majority of voters want it. And we have graffiti removal programs because a majority of voters want it. That is the way things work. The fact that I, in the minority, would prefer that welfare did not exist does not make any difference whatsoever -- and shouldn't.

Starchild, don't be upset about this, but your arguments remind me of a joke a recently heard:

Robert goes to see his doctor. The doctor tells him his cholesterol level is really high, and he needs to improve his diet. For an example of what Robert should eat, the doctor says, "Just go by this general rule, Robert, if it swims it's good for you." A week later, the doctor was going by Robert's house and decided to see how Robert was doing. Robert's brother answered the door, and said, "Hi Doc, Robert is out in back in the pool." "Very good!," said the doctor, "Swimming is very good exercise." "Oh, he is not swimming," said Robert's brother, "He is teaching the pig and the cow how to swim."

Marcy

35

There is a button for that.

Marcy