Comments (8)

• David Heinrich

• Here's some criticisms and concerns I have.

  1. I don't see how graffiti "artists" are taxed like everyone else. These are people who obviously have no jobs, as they're busy wasting time defacing buildings, roads, and bridges. These are typically gangsters, criminals, bums, and other scum, who do not pay taxes. Probably not even sales taxes, as they probably buy most things "under the table", or via food-stamps, or other government handouts. Many of them probably live off of welfare, thus are net tax-consumers.

  2. I live in a nice little suburban neighborhood. It is considered acceptable for locals to "alter the road" in certain non-permanent ways. Children write on the road with chalk, and play "hop-scotch", for example. However, I don't see why we should accept some punks from the city coming to our neighborhood and spray-painting obscenities on the road. This doesn't constitute some kind of "homesteading": (a) the road isn't "unowned", it is the just property of those who paid for it, although they don't have control of it, as they should in justice; (b) These punks certainly have no claim to "homestead" it anyways, but rather only those who actually paid for it. Only the people who actually paid for it would have such a claim.

  3. Regarding the person who said, "they just taxed me, they just took money out of my father's checks", if they took money from his father's checks, that doesn't constitute theft against him, but his father. Thus, if anyone would be entitled to homestead anything, it would be his father, not him. Or, his father would have to give him permission to homestead on his behalf. (as a side-note, I'd question the honesty of this person, since he already demonstrates low character by being a punk who defaces property.

  4. Prof. Block & Prof. D'Amico's argument seems to give no recourse to the person who doesn't want bridges, roads, etc defaced. How can we "homestead" these things so that others don't deface them?

  5. Block & D'Amico note that in sporting events, it's considered acceptable to leave peanut shells under the seats. Is that really true? Or is it merely something they can't completely enforce? I don't think movie-theatres really consent to people throwing their popcorn on the floor, leaving their soda on the floor (so that one's shoes actually stick to the floor). Rather, it's just an unavoidable cost of doing business, given the character of people.

  6. Block & D'Amico argue that the graffiti artist diminishes the States's gain from stealing property from the citizenry. Perhaps this is true. But one could also argue that they diminish the value that those who's money was stolen receive from what their money was used to buy. I don't see how the person who steals from the thief is any different than the thief himself.

  Let me clarify. If I see that John holds up Adam, and steals $20 from him, then I hold up John and "liberate" that $20, is this justified? Well, I can't quite answer yet. If I return the money to Adam, then yes. If I keep it for myself, then I have merely partially substituted myself for John, as the person who stole from Adam. Of course, John's still a criminal, but now, so too am I.

  Block & D'Amico say, "We can thus say to the complaining taxpayer: go though, and homestead some of your own money back, and stop complaining about those who have valiantly done so". Well, how is this taxpayer supposed to homestead some of his own money back, if he wants it to remain as it is, and doesn't want to use it to produce disgusting ganster-symbols? What if he thinks -- given the sunk cost of the road or bridge being built in the first place -- the best use for it is simply to remain as it is?

  I suppose one could say he could hire gaurds to defend it from such defacement, as he would do for his own property. However, why should someone making a civilized use of an existing resource be made to pay a higher cost than someone who wants to paint obsceneties on it? That is, it is clearly much cheaper to paint graffiti on public property and "homestead" it that way, than to "homestead" it by merely leaving it as it be, and providing protection. Or, would merely preventing someone from painting on it once suffice to constitute homesteading, if it be done with that purpose? Even then, the cost of homesteading would be higher: if you try to prevent a graffiti artist from doing what he's to do, you're likely to get shot. But he's not likely to get shot for engaging in graffiti.

  Primarily, my objections boils down to: (1) If A steals from B (who has stolen from C), and does not return this money to C, then A is a crook himself; (2) I don't see how these class of people (who's "job" of obtaining money coercively via wealth-redistribution would not be legitimate in the unhampered free market) who are net tax-receivers are in a position to justly homestead; (3) How can people homestead public property if they want it to remand as it is?

  Note: This comment has been amended to appropriately reflect co-authorship. As Prof. D'Amico points out, I failed to acknowledge this, and am truly regretful of such.

• Published: March 21, 2005 7:52 PM

• Daniel J. D'Amico

• David,

  Thanks for the read. You bring up the interesting point of the liberators liberation interfering with current usage of property. I agree that this can cause ambiguity in the reclaiming process from coercive to legitimate owners. But there is some objectivity even in this case, mainly that the initial user has already homesteaded and in some sense liberated the property. So a conflict would exist and property ownership would need to be clarified. This ellucidates issues of ambiguous property lines. When homesteading, where does the clear line of ownership begin and end? Some make claims that radio signals are not tresspass as they do not obstruct the owner from using his property for his intended use. Could this argument be paralleled to graffiti? Granted youn mentioned what if people just don't like the art work? This would indeed be a problem, but if anything this paper is meant to show that it is a problem propogated by state provision of public goods, as are most societal problems. Other than that I would encourage you not to make blanket statements of judgements about graffiti artists in an ad hominum fashion.

  By the way thanks for the lack of recognition in co-authorship.

• Published: March 21, 2005 11:54 PM

• Daniel J. D'Amico

• Also this paper was discussed in length in the forum
  go to the forum
  

• Published: March 22, 2005 12:04 AM

• David Heinrich

• Prof. D'Amico,

  As a forenote, I'd like to apologize for failing to recognize co-authorship in my original response. I sincerely apologize.

  Responding to your points...

  quote:
  ------
  You bring up the interesting point of the liberators liberation interfering with current usage of property. I agree that this can cause ambiguity in the reclaiming process from coercive to legitimate owners. But there is some objectivity even in this case, mainly that the initial user has already homesteaded and in some sense liberated the property.
  ------

  I think I would agree with that solution. However, the difficult question is, "how have they homesteaded it"? It seems, if anything, they've homesteaded an easement -- the right to drive through it. That is, most people, by driving over a road, or a bridge, homestead an easement, the right to drive over it (sort of like how a polluter homesteads an easement to pollution).

  But, how can one homestead it in the sense that it's not to be defaced? Because this is "negative" or "defensive" homesteading, I think this is a challenge. Perhaps "gaurding" the road, or hiring people to gaurd it. But, I see a fundamental unfairness here, that the person graffitizing the road can thus homestead it at almost no cost, while the person gaurding it has to do so at great cost. Ok, this point is completely prey to the subjectivity of costs, so I'll concede it as "purely psychological". However, a question it raises is, for the defensive homesteader, how defensive do they have to be to homestead it, so that it is to remain as is? Gaurd it constantly? Once? Twice? Perhaps some principle could be thought of here...

• Published: March 22, 2005 1:01 AM

• Peter

• Consider Ragnar Danneskjold, of Ayn Rand's (1957) novel Atlas Shrugged who was a 'pirate' operating only against real pirates, e.g., the government. He was thus a morally commendable character i.e. an anti-Robin Hood, Robin Hood.

  Robin Hood is commonly said to "steal from the rich and give to the poor", but the "rich" in this case are government agents who enrich themselves through taxation, and the "poor" are the tax-payers -- he just returned the tax money to its original owner. Danneskjold destroys and/or keeps the tax money, so in some sense Robin Hood is the more commendable character, but in any case, Danneskjold is not an anti Robin Hood.

• Published: March 22, 2005 1:46 AM

• David Heinrich

• Dan,

  Something I forgot to mention...

  My characterization of graffiti artists was a general impression, based on what I've observed, of the kind of people these characters are. I do not have much respect for these people, and view them on par with those who write obscenities in public bathrooms (e.g., at the University/hospital I work at).

  The point is that who these people are is relevant. If they are net tax-recipients, engaged in a "profession" that is illegitimate by libertarian principles (e.g., receiving welfare payments) then they are in no position to homestead public property. The same would generally apply to those who work for the IRS. These people cannot legitimately homestead public property because they, in fact, are criminals by natural law, and are net debtors.

  For those graffiti artists to whom this characterization does not apply, such conclusions do not necessarily hold. However, the main problem then is that in most cases, they are "second homesteaders" and are interfering with an existing use.

  The obvious exception is abandoned buildings and whatnot.

  I am also considering specifically the American graffiti artists. In the case of those in Iraq painting "war" underneath stop-signs, I am in much more in sympathy.

  Sincerely,
  David J. Heinrich

• Published: March 22, 2005 10:09 PM

• Stephan Kinsella

• I think it's problematic to say public property is "unowned". It is clearly not unowned. It is owned by either the state, or by other people but possessed by the state.

  It seems to me that if the state holds property others own--say, it steals my building--then it does not follow that other victims of the state have a right to use or write graffity on that property. It is still my property. Analogy: the mafia takes over my house for a shoot-out with another gang. That does not give the right for others to graffiti my house.

  But for other property--e.g., purchased with tax dollars--which probably makes up the vast majority of state or public property, it makes sense to me to say that this is just an asset owned by the state. The state's victims have a claim for restitution against the state and thus a sort of "lien" on this public property. So they are its owners in a sense. Now it also seems to me that the state ought to private the land--auction it off and distribute the proceeds to the victims--but if it does not, it is better if the rules the state sets for the property give a benefit to the victims. This helps give some restitution back.

  As an example: my small City has a public park, pool, tennis courts, and weightroom. I can use it for a nominal fee. My property taxes help subsidize it. The City charges outsiders a much higher fee. This helps make it an attractive facility to use. If the state had no rules, or charged a low fee to everyone equally, this would in essence make the park unusable by me and other taxpayer-victims. So it would reduce the restitution we are receiving, thus increasing the overall harm.

  In this sense, there is a justice-based reason why a government ought to set rules for the use of public property that are "reasonable" rules that benefit the citizens, as opposed to unreasonable rules that don't benefit them.

  It is unclear to me how this meshes with the notion that any citizen can "homestead" public property. These positions seem to conflict.

• Published: March 23, 2005 3:23 PM

• Caity

• "These are typically gangsters, criminals, bums, and other scum, who do not pay taxes."

  Just because you saw it on the Fresh Prince intro doesn't make it so.

• Published: October 15, 2007 9:55 PM