Market Anarchy Graffiti

Image Hosted by
This was my project for the week. The hardest parts were macgyvering a flashlight projecter to blow up the stencils and getting the ladders to not tip over on the uneven river bottom. I only had to do commit a little trespassing to get it done!

It replaces my old sign:
Image Hosted by

I know Micha will think it's an improvement.

Share this


Nice work. Do you have digital files of the stencils you used that you'd be willing to share? It wouldn't be a lot of work to draft my own, obviously, but one less thing to do is always nice.

I just wrote them in word

I just wrote them in word with the stencillia font on transparency paper then projected them onto cardboard taped to a wall in my basement with a flashlight.

I hate you

I hate you because I hate graffitti.

A Legal and Economic

A Legal and Economic Analysis of Graffiti, by Daniel J. D'Amico and Walter Block (George Mason University and Loyola University New Orleans)

Abstract: A case for the de-criminalization of graffiti is made, based on the existence of an unjust government, and predicated on private property rights. A distinction is made between artistic trespass, or vandalism, on the one hand, which we claim can be undertaken only on private property, and, on the other, graffiti, which in our view can only occur on public property. If the government that claims ownership of the latter is an illicit one, then graffiti can reasonably be interpreted as a justified attack on it, or rebellion.

He said he trespassed

He said he trespassed so it's obviously not his own property. Sounds like vandalism to me. Most property owners aren't interested in putting graffiti on their buildings. I've never heard of murals or other forms of painting on ones own property referred to as graffitti. Mostly graffiti refers to the criminal kind, and mostly it's about communicating vanity. Graffiti is also about forcing communication on others when they don't want it.

Even when it's political, like the bastards who started spray painting up stop signs in my neighborhood with "Bush", it's vandalism. Yes they had a political message and no I didn't want to hear it. Especially since it lowers property values in the area because the second thing they are communicating is that there are malcontents in the area willing to destroy other peoples property.

It adds insult to injury when somebody who isn't willing to respect property rights communicates a political message to me. Who are they to tell me about what is and is not politically feasible when they are willing to violate so basic an issue.

Rent a billboard or an ad in the local paper if you want to advertise. Hell, you can even buy a piece of property to do so if you feel renting is more expensive than ownership. Thomas Paine did fine with his pamplets so I don't even see the need for visual pollution.

He said he trespassed so

He said he trespassed so it's obviously not his own property

Not necessarily, maybe he needed to trespass just to get there.

I doubt it

I have no problem with it if bought an old bridge support and is the owner. Then it's no different than a billboard. I very much doubt that's the case.

Graffiti is also about

Graffiti is also about forcing communication on others when they don't want it.

As opposed to billboards, right?

Especially since it lowers property values in the area

Lots of things lower (and increase) property values. That doesn't make them right or wrong.

Even when it's political, like the bastards who started spray painting up stop signs in my neighborhood with "Bush", it's vandalism.

Oh, boo fucking hoo. Take off your bowtie and chillax a little.

Good good bad

As opposed to billboards, right?

Good point.

Lots of things lower (and increase) property values.

Good point.

Oh, boo fucking hoo.

Not even a point.

"Graffiti is also about

"Graffiti is also about forcing communication on others when they don't want it."

"As opposed to billboards, right?"

Billboards don't force me with my own property.

Billboards can also be controlled by restrictive covenants, and other community means. They tend to be restricted in these ways. Graffitti knows no such boundaries because it's a criminal enterprise. It is in fact straight vandalism. So yes it is wrong. The specific property owners do not want it on their property.

There many other methods of restricting billboards. Like if you put a big sign pointing my way on your property I put one on mine that points your way. The reason it's controlled by this is simple reciprocity. The graffitti vandal just sprays his crap on both our properties. We don't even know who did it.

Last elections libertarian candidate refused to get a drivers license because apparently he didn't understand that private owners of private roads would also have required him to get some kind of license. Probably insurance too. They would likely also put up some signage. What they wouldn't do is want random people to paint up their property.
They especially would not want signage related to safety sprayed up.

Crime reducing property values is a very different thing than most other things that reduce property values.

I don't see where the "market" comes into "market anarchy" if you run around vandalizing other peoples property.

"Oh, boo fucking hoo. Take off your bowtie and chillax a little."

No. The fact they caught these two "grammar vigilantes" also brings tears to my eyes. In fact I think I had an orgasm at the same time.

I'd like to see the laws corrected for graffitti to make restitution a larger part of it. However I think that the risk of getting caught should be factored in. One way to empircally do that is to keep records of actual damage done over time and then make the few who get caught not only pay restitution to their actual victims but to all the other victims averaged over some time period.

So maybe you average damages over a running time period and assess the damages across all vandals who get caught during those periods. They pay a proportion of all damages in proportion to the actual damage caused by them.

Thus if only two vandals are caught. vandal A causes $1500 worth of damage, B $500, with community damages running at $10000 then vandal A would be forced to pay restitution of $7500 and B $2500.

They pay more restitution because there is an empirical measure of 1 in 5 of their being caught. That measure would vary over time. Factoring it up makes the odds fair between property owner and vandal, which it isn't right now. The odds under such a system are 1:1, not 5:1 in favor of the criminal.

Community damages would include physical damage, the cost of cleanup, costs of prosecution, any additional costs required to mitigate against graffitti like special coatings on signs, survellance cameras, etc.

All the victims would be payed recompense out of the funds for their damages.

If the graffitti artist vandals complain about having to pay for more damages than they actually caused we can then tell them "boo fucking hoo, you played the newer fair odds and lost".

BTW, I wouldn't go by what Walter Block has to say. I have his book, "Defending the Undefendable". His intention was to find things that most people regard as undefendable and find valid defenses for them. Which is great when the actual acts are defendable. Unfortunately, he picked a couple that are in fact undefendable.

Walter fails to take into account simple objections to his very often bizzare arguments. Several of his mistakes rest on his failure to understand that the particular crimes violate freedom of association. If I knowingly lie to you claiming as a fact that Jimmy sells tainted beef when he doesn't then that slander or libel is a fraud intended to distrupt both Jimmy and your freedom to associate. Same goes for yelling fire in a crowded room.

He also fails to take into account a reasonable person theory with regards to much of this. Sure there are some freaks who might enjoy being trampled at the exits by someone yelling fire but we certainly shouldn't need to explicitly add "don't yell fire" into contracts. The default should be the other way, and even if we did allow contracts with clauses that endangered people there are plenty of arguments for all sorts of controls on that, like requiring irrational garbage in contracts to be printed in red ink or something.

Even that under certain circumstances, disallowing such "freedom of contract" all together. Similar arguments to why we don't allow people to freely contract themselves into slavery.

Here's an example

Here's an example of a victim who's a farmer who owns some owns some land and has a constant stream of "Graffitti artists" aka. vandals that tresspass on his property and wreck it. He happens to own a nice rock outcropping overlooking the highway.

That link is a mapquest streetview image of a stretch along a highway. I've driven past there over the period of a decade and he is constantly having to whitewash over the graffitti there. This particular owner values whitewashed rocks above graffittied rocks. Since he didn't whitewash all the rocks he obviously values unwhitewashed rocks above whitewashed ones. The "market" of market anarchy has spoken.

I happen to think rock outcroppings look nice and it's probable that the land owner does too. Here is a rock outcropping that I used to own and I would be incredibly pissed if someone had tresspassed to put some graffitti up on it.

The prior owner of this piece of property used to have a grape stake fence to mitigate noise from the road. It was constantly being graffitti up because it was easy access late at night. Mostly it was BS. He would clean and/or replace the fence to clear fix it up. He eventually sold.

However the new owners were asian and then they started getting a few racist "political" comments spray painted too. So they tore down the fence and put up bushes. Which lowered the value of the property to themselves.

Since they wanted the fence there before the graffitti they valued the property more with a fence than with bushes. Obviously free market forces has deemed that the most valuable use, not as signage for racist political messages.


Nice work! So thats not a stencil? Good effort...


I do hope it wasn't private property, though. Being a graffiti artist myself, I am always careful to only tag "public" (government) property, and not private property unless I have the owner's consent.