Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by Monkeynuts, Jan 13, 2007.
So its not binary then, is it?
Yes, you're right - but I believe tagging is wrong. If this opinion is simplistic so be it. It's not so complex a topic that I think it requires more detailed examination.
If it's your own wall / train or someone lets you do a piece somewhere then paint away.
If there were problems with comms then I can see how the driver would have reason to complain.
Poor sod has to live with killing someone.
He's the one I feel sorry for but I find it hard to have any feelings for the blokes who died doing something stupid.
You have me on that one.
OK then, there is a discontinuity between scales of rightness and wrongness and things are either right or wrong (clearly this depends on which perspective you are at looking at it from, but let's say it is possible to reach a global, balanced view - which in the case of a relatively simple issue like tagging is probably true, in my opinion) and it is then a question of where they fall on the respective scale.
On private property (unless you wish to misinterpet Proudhon and really believe "all property is theft") then it's wrong because, well, it's not yours to do stuff to and the owner may or may not like it.
On public property then it belongs to all of us and unless there is a majority of people in favour or at least indifferent then much the same applies I think.
Why do you believe it is wrong? Because it is someone else's property? Is it always wrong to do something to someone else's property without their permission?
So the council towing my car away is wrong then?
What about advertising billboards polluting the public visual environment? Is that right or wrong?
Sounds like a good philosophy exam question. It's certainly polite to ask first.
So if the council tow my car away, they should ask first? What about the government compulsory purchasing property (like when they build a new road)? Is that wrong?
That's because a bit of your property is on a bit of their property and it's easier to move your bit. There's also the presumption of the greater good. Clamping has always seemed a bit morally dubious to me though.
I don't care for them and if you search back you will see I leave myself wide open to criticism by saying I enjoyed seeing them defaced. My defence is that it's only a bit of paper.
I would find it hard to argue they are "wrong" though.
They are relying on the presumption of the greater good again. Obviously I might find it hard to agree if it was my house.
Whose property? Isn't it public property?
Who gets to decide this?
So its OK for some people to deface public space, but not others?
Greater good for who?
Is it a utilitarian argument? How can the outcomes be foreseen?
It is public property. We appoint the council as custodians. In theory we all get to decide this. The fact that it works at best imperfectly doesn't necessarily mean the principle is a load of shit.
It isn't OK for some to deface public space.
In the case of the advertisers and ad companies then unfortunately it is private space to which the thing is attached. Much as you could if you wish paint your house an unpleasant colour or write what you like on your gable wall.
Excesses and visual pollution are of course supposed to be controlled by the planning system, working under the same custodianship principle.
In the case of people defacing adverts, then it is wrong but sits at the extreme end of the scale seeing as it causes so little harm - being against neither publi property nor private individuals' property and so impermanent.
That is presumably the underlying philosophy, yes. Cost / benefit analyses and all that, mechanistic, inhuman and subjective as they are.
I was in Edinburgh last week and was coming down from the mound looking over Waverly station at the buildings behind Princes street. A really beautiful view that was only spoiled by the presence of 3 fuck off massive billboards planted right in the middle of the view. Was going to take a photo at first but decided not to. I think in English law what it boils down to is that it's okay to do certain things if you're a landowner but not if you're a pleb. What could be a better example of public property than a view of a beautiful city?
Do we get to appoint them? No one asked me whether I wanted the council to contract their "traffic management" services out to a private company. No one asked me whether I think towing a car away for not having the right parking permit is OK.
Except if I lived in a conservation area, I couldn't.
Custodianship? In whose interests?
Why is it wrong? If its OK for someone to put them in my community without asking the people who live here, why is it wrong for the people who live here to deface them?
So how can the outcomes be foreseen?
Yes, this is what I'm driving at.
Plenty of plebs have let JD Decaux or whoever plonk a billboard on the side of their house.
You would hope that if enough people wrote to the council they would be able to do somthing about it - not that permission should have been given in the first place
I don't know mate, I'm not in the business of doing them. I imagine they try and include predictions of some sort and try to ascribe values to various things.
If they own houses then they're landowners. Even if in your opinion they are plebby ones.
You're expressing support of the state to be able to override individual property rights in certain circumstances as determined by the state. This is hardly consistent with your previous arguments.
Gives round of applause to blagsta, who I think has conclusively shown that these issues relating to property are far from binary matters.
Does playing Grand Theft Auto count?
You could be both!
Pleb wasn't my word by the way
My previous argument was against individuals overriding common property rights.
I don't really go for the idea of "the state" as an entity beyond the sum total of all of us and the people we appoint to administer on our collective behalf.
So you are almost talking about the inverse, aren't you?
The collective outweighing the individual?
I haven't been convinced it isn't when we're talking about people tagging things.
As I say, collective vs individual.
Fair enough, thw word pleb was flippant but if you're arguing that they own land then they're obviously primarily landowners with respect to this argument.
no land = nothing on which to put adverts
Although you could always try the side of your car, your van or indeed wear a nice t-shirt
Unless we are going to have an argument about the fundamental aspects of property rights, in which case I am just going to have to admit defeat
Separate names with a comma.