Posted on 08/25/2008 9:29:40 PM PDT by goldstategop
Earlier this month Andrew Sullivan, a well-known writer, once in the center, now on the left, nominated me for what is apparently his lowest badge of distinction for defending citizens who shoot to wound graffiti vandals, or "taggers," while committing their vandalism.
Under the heading, "Malkin Award Nominee," Sullivan provides a quote from my radio show:
"'So you will now say -- I hear the voice of an ACLU member -- 'Dennis, do you think that this guy should have shot these people spray painting graffiti on his shop?' To which my answer is yes. I do. Not to kill. Not to kill. But if he shot them in the legs or in the arms I would have considered the man one of the great advancers of civilization in my time. And that is what divides left from right. Because anybody on the left hearing this would think that this is barbaric whereas I consider not stopping these people in any way that is necessary to be barbaric.' -- Dennis Prager, on his radio show."
Mr. Sullivan provides no commentary because, as I predicted in the excerpt he cites, what I said is so obviously morally offensive to him, no commentary is necessary. It is self-indicting.
To those on the left.
Their differing reactions to graffiti vandals further clarify the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives.
Reactions to graffiti on the cultural left -- not necessarily the political left, since liberal politicians must respond to public outrage or they are not re-elected -- have generally ranged from support to indifference.
Many on the left have long described graffiti as "urban art" and graffiti vandals as "artists." Even when not admired or even defended, most liberals regard graffiti in far less negative ways than do conservatives. Conservatives tend to regard graffiti as an assault on society, perpetrated by pathologically narcissistic lowlifes bent on undermining the foundations of higher civilization.
To personalize this for a moment, while I assume that graffiti troubles Sullivan, I strongly doubt it troubles him nearly as much as it troubles me. If it did, the odds are he would not be a man of the left.
Why are so many on the left not as angered by graffiti as most conservatives are? I would like to offer some possible reasons:
One is that liberals find it difficult to condemn the poor, especially poor members of ethnic and racial minorities. If rich white kids spray painted their names on university buildings, there would probably be a liberal outcry.
A second reason is that crimes against property tend to disturb the left less than the right, especially when "no one is hurt"; and graffiti is deemed by many liberals as a classic example of no one being hurt. That is why I suspect that most people on the left would express greater anger toward someone who lit up a cigarette in a mall or a restaurant than toward an inner city kid who spray painted his initials on neighborhood walls and signs.
A third reason is that conservatives tend to view higher civilization as more fragile than the left views it. Conservatives believe the line between civilization and barbarism is under constant assault and is not necessarily enduring. That is one reason the right tends to have a higher regard for the police than does the left. Conservatives see the police as "the thin blue line" that separates civilization from barbarians.
So, it is natural that conservatives would see graffiti as vandalism, as an undermining of the very notion of higher civilization, as a public scorning of the common good, as essentially an "F---- you" to society.
Liberals are far more inclined to see graffiti as a mere nuisance, or even as an example of the downtrodden trying to have a voice in a civilization that oppresses young people who are usually members of historically oppressed minorities.
To the conservative, graffiti is an assault on civilization; to the liberal, graffiti is the result of civilization's assault on those who paint the graffiti.
For those who share Sullivan's political and social values, the notion that someone would defend a man who shot and wounded graffiti vandals defacing his property is worthy of derision. Sullivan is so sure his readers have contempt for such a view that he felt it unnecessary to offer a word of commentary on what I said.
That is unfortunate. I would be interested to know how Sullivan regards taggers and what he would suggest be done to them if caught in the act of defacing property. Since most people suspect that calling the police would achieve little, if anything, what should be done?
My first wish is that taggers be arrested and punished. I also wish for world peace and a cure for cancer. But the real-life choice is almost always between taggers getting away with their vandalism and an irate citizen taking action. Given the destructive nature of tagging -- the moment one sees graffiti, one knows one has entered a largely lawless and violent environment where thugs terrorize innocents -- I prefer something, even if violent, rather than nothing be done.
I have no desire to see a graffiti vandal killed -- my position has always been that only those who cause death deserve death (that is why I oppose the death penalty for any crime except murder). But if enough taggers are wounded, their assault on civilization will decline dramatically. And if one accidentally dies? That would be a tragedy. But here is the bottom line: More innocent people will die if tagging is not stopped than if it is. Graffiti unchecked leads to worse crime.
Those who deface private and public property are not otherwise decent kids who are oppressed and not allowed any other form of self-expression. My sense is that the vast majority of graffiti vandals are headed toward, if not already involved in, a life of sociopathology, including violence.
Indeed, increasingly those graffiti vandals do engage in violence. Citizens who so much as flash their headlights or yell at them to stop have been shot and sometimes murdered.
As in so many other areas, with regard to taggers, right and left see life through opposing moral prisms. On the left, the tagger is viewed as society's victim; on the right, society is viewed as the tagger's victim.
So, the lefties view graffiti as a “victimless” crime? I have a couple of answers to THAT one:
1) Let’s set up a special tax on those who have this view, the proceeds of which will be used to clean up graffiti. Any leftovers will be used to educate poor, inner city youths as to the harm done by graffiti to property owners.
2) Gun ownership - in and of itself - is also victimless (and it damned sure isn’t a crime for the 99% of us who aren’t violent felons, drug addicts, etc.). Tell you what, liberals, I’ll trade you a free pass on graffiti if you’ll wipe all federal gun control laws off the books.
As usual, the lefties won’t agree to either of these propositions. Why? Because they are a bunch of self-righteous hypocrits.
The leftists have no respect of private property rights,”
I believe that more conservatives than liberals actually own property.
Therefore, liberals cannot understand our anger when someone defaces it.
Not a major gun person, but I thought you weren’t supposed to shoot EXCEPT to kill? Though I know bad kids used to get their butts filled with rocksalt from shotguns. A guy on my old commuter van had it happen to him; he said after his mom picked them all out she slopped on some antiseptic that made it REALLY sting. I suppose that’s illegal now too.
Never shoot to wound, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen. And don’t shoot to kill either. You shoot to stay alive.
That usually means shooting to stop... And that often means shooting to affect grievous traumatic damage to the central nervous system of a human... And that typically entails shooting center mass or head... And that is often followed by death. But the point is: never shoot to wound.
In Texas ya do not want to mess around on anyones property after dark.........it ain’t healthy at all !
Wasn't this nation started because of personal freedom involving property rights?
My property is what I draw my sustenance from; you try to destroy my property you are trying to destroy me personally. You had better believe that if I can you will die before I will...
In Texas ya do not want to mess around on anyones property after dark.........it ain’t healthy at all !
If enough taggers are found hanging from utility poles, I expect the numbers of *their assaults on civilization will decline* even MORE dramatically.
Still, turn about is better for fair play. Shooting taggers with paintball guns certainly seems fair, and offers a possibility of alternative technical protective measures when the homeowner isn't around.
Bawlimer?
“Bawlimer”
Nah...city o’ brotherly luv...
It pains me to see row homes in Camden and West Philly that would fetch millions of dollars if only they were located in Manhattan and Brooklyn, but are instead home to crackheads.
I think you and I have had this conversation before...
I loved growing up there; every third house had 3.5 kids in it (never figured out what happened to the other .5), the neighbors all knew each other and watched out for each other, and it was generally a great place to be a kid. All WWII and Korean war vets, working middle class, salt of the earth people.
Everything was within walking, bike, or bus distance, and there were corner variety stores where could you walk to and get the little things that made life worth living - Comic books, TastyKakes, Mountain Dew, and candy.
Those were good days - then it ended. Would NEVER consider living anywhere NEAR the city again. Mayor Thugnutter can keep it.
Shouldn't be too hard with a good rifle. Since .22LR tracers are readily available, having one as the #3 or so in the pipe might make for some fun.
If there were widespread signs warning "Graffiti taggers beware: Property owners may shoot you on sight", along with a public-relations effort making clear that tagging was, in fact, as dangerous as the warnings implied, the only people who would engage in such behaviors would be those who were suicidal, dangerous, or both.
While it may be unfortunate when some people who are suicidal get themselves killed rather than seeking help, I see no reason to blame the instrumentality of their demise. And if people who are dangerous get killed as a result of their behavior, I would generally see that as a good thing.
Crimes which demonstrate total contempt for the rights (including property) of other people should be dangerous. Those who commit such crimes should have no rights whatsoever unless or until they surrender themselves to the police for prosecution. While prudence would limit certain 'shoot on sight' policies (since, among other things, someone may be misidentified as a crook when he's acting legitimately) a tolerance for criminals will result in the proliferation thereof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.