Pochacco wrote:
The only thing more wacked would be the impotent intellectual process which concluded that it does. Life is the most precious property, and murder of it is the most heinous crime. But you are not to be excused if you murder what someone else greatly values simply because you hold it in trivial esteem.
I’m sorry to say I participated in vandalism when I was young. I broke things, smashed windows, slashed tires and so on. It wasn’t an every day or even month thing but somtimes I would go on a binge.
Looking back, I did it because I felt worthless, powerless and ignored. I was unhappy and nobody seemed to care. I think I did it to feel a rush, express my unhappiness to the world and hopefully make others unhappy also. It made me feel more alive and a part of the world if that makes sense.
My thoughts…
I think the mentality that vandalism stems from is perfectly natural when people are very young. The first time a child discovers that they can stomp on, say, a toy, and reduce it to shards of plastic is a rush. Hey, look, I have power over this toy. I decide whether it remains a toy, or is smashed into splinters. At a time when it seems that you have no power over anything, this sort of thinking is probably very self-validating. You may be subject to the whims of a lot of things, but you can also subject aspects of the environment to your whims.
Little kids - especially boys, though not exclusively by any means - like to break things. Hey, I admit, destruction can be kinda fun. I remember when I was an apprentice working for my dad, an electrician. Sometimes I would have to take old flourescent bulbs out and toss them in the dumpster. The first time I dumped them in there and saw one explode was cool - thereafter I always tried to throw them in there in a way that maximized the potential for a nice little explosive foomp sound. However, as cool as was to see these things explode, I never once tried to break one that I wasn’t supposed to.
And this is where the line gets drawn between a harmless “Wow, cool!”-factor, and vandalism. Children need to be taught early on that as fun as it may be to break stuff, other people have rights to not have their stuff broken. They need to learn respect. I think that’s why poor neighborhoods tend to see more vandalism. Poor people - particularly single parents - are less likely to have the time (or sometimes the inclination) to train their kids that some things are right and wrong, and as such the kids don’t learn to have the proper respect for others’ property.
Of course, poverty doesn’t have a monopoly on vandalism. I’m sure there are plenty of people with ample money who also lack good old fashioned respect.
Jeff
Like, say, all the East-Coast Americans back in the 1800’s who came west to shoot buffalo from train windows, cut out the animals’ tongues, and leave the rest of the cadaver to rot in the sun? No poverty there, except in spirituality.
Regarding the larger debate subject: What do you think possessed those Roman soldiers to carve stuff into Stonehenge?
Who’s saying vandals should be excused? But calling destruction of property “murder” dilutes the value of the term. I realize your purpose is to make people take vandalism more seriously, but broadening the definition of a word to demonize a wider circle of people usually has the opposite effect – it makes evils of the original group seem more comprehensible.
For example, we shouldn’t refer to the Republicans as “fascists”, lest people start to think that real fascism is merely another word for right-wing and cease to fear it.
I think we should refer to Republicans as “Fabianists”, but that’s another matter. I don’t agree with the point you’re making. Murder already has several idiomatic definitions, one of which is “to destroy”. (American Heritage) It is also popularly used to indicate a landslide sports victory as well as a flock of crows.
Well, which is it?
Crimes against property–taking or damaging things which belong to someone else–are bad. Crimes against persons–harming someone else directly–are worse. To say that crimes against other persons directly are worse than crimes against other persons’ property is not to say that property crimes are just dandy.
I agree. I’m just saying that property is not worth someones life.
MEBuckner wrote:
Why should I acquiesce to the random dichotomy drawn by you? The nation’s largest state is Alaska. It contains the nation’s largest municipality, North Slope Borough. Murder is the most heinous form of vandalism, which is the most heinous ethical offense.
Just wanted to add, for those who have felt a connection between vandalism and poverty - I live in a suburb that would be classified as upper middle class. Several million+ homes (not mine!) In the last couple of years there have been a couple of pretty costly incidents of school vandalism. One of the biggest destroyed many computers at the public middle school, and was done by a couple of students at the local parochial school. There are also plenty of examples of spray paint. On benches or park play equipment for example. And don’t get me going on the damage thoughtlessly inflicted by those blankety-blank grinding skateboard punks.
Tho this may be a hijack, how about littering? Which I consider somewhat akin to vandalism. What causes someone to shatter a bottle on a bike path? Or throw fast food wrappers out their car window. Also, to explore the possibility of an economic factor, often it seems to me that there is more streetside trash in poorer neighborhoods. Anyone else notice this? What would make poorer people less willing or able to properly dispose of their trash?
The notion that poor people tend toward vandalism by virtue of their poverty is a vicious bigotry. My own experience is that people of poverty often exhibit the highest calibre of moral character, while people of wealth often exhibit the lowest.
I visited Las Vegas a number of years ago. One night, I was walking along a major thoroughfare (not the Strip; one of the offshoots) toward the Excalibur. Traffic whizzed along, a few feet to my right.
Suddenly there was a flashing blur in front of me, and something big and hard hit me in the stomach. I doubled over and went to my knees, and heard, faintly, cackling laughter from a passing car. As I regained my wind, I found that I had been struck by a piece of asphalt about the size of a paperback book (big like Clan of the Cave Bear, not slender like Animal Farm).
As it turns out, I was not seriously hurt; the object hit me perfectly, off-center below the ribs but above the hip blade, so there wasn’t anything hard or vital to sustain an injury beyond a bruise. But the hotel people informed me that (at that time, anyway) this was a common game in town, perpetrated by bored teenagers. Since Vegas is a casino town, there’s virtually nothing to do if you’re under the age of 21, and the teenagers must make their own fun.
In other words, their casual destructiveness is a result of their being ignored and marginalized, not of their being poor. The fact that the poor are also ignored and marginalized, however, is to me more than a coincidence.
I see a lot of it as being the “it’s not mine” scenario. Manifestly, it’s not their individual property, and they see no sense of ownership in public property – because they don’t feel themselves to be any part of the community, out of a sense of exclusion. Teenage rebellion is part and parcel of that sense of anomie – they are intensely loyal to those who matter to them, but the world as a whole (in their view) couldn’t care less about them and they return the compliment.
“And if this belongs to all of “them” who won’t let me do what I want – it only serves them right if I destroy it.”
It’s a sad mindset, but all too common. And worth thinking about why it occurs.
But that “why” would spark considerable disagreement, I’m pretty sure.
Vicious bigotry? Please. I suppose it’s also a vicious bigotry to suggest that black people commit more crimes. If I was saying something to the effect of “poor people are inferior, and this inferiority manifests itself in the commiting of more vandalism”, you may have a point. Poverty, in and of itself, is not a character flaw. However, character flaws can frequently result in poverty. If you’re lazy and don’t want to work, there’s a good chance you’re going to be poor. Do a lot of drugs? May be poor. It can also be the result of poor choices. Didn’t feel like finishing highschool? Hey, there’s a good chance poverty will be knocking on your door. Got knocked up when you were 16 by some creep who promptly left? I can reasonably see single, low-income motherhood in your future. These are not absolutes, but they are trends, and calling me a bigot for pointing them out does nothing to enrich the discussion.
Now, if we accept as a given that these types of characteristics and choices are likely to lead to poverty, and we also accept that they are likely to lead to a parenting style that - through either lack of concern or lack of time - doesn’t emphasize respect for others’ property, then is it unreasonable to state, “Hey, maybe there’s a correlation between poverty and tendency to commit vandalism”? I fail to see how that’s bigotry. Sounds more like inductive reasoning to me.
Now, it has been pointed out that there are plenty of wealthy neighborhoods that experience vandalism, as well. While this falls outside my range of experience - I’m from a lower-to-middle-class background, so I’m more accustomed to lower and middle-class areas - it doesn’t surprise me too much. If you’re used to snapping your fingers and having whatever you like magically appear in front of you, if you are deluded into thinking that money - and by extension, property - grows on trees, I can easily see how you would have less of an appreciation for property than someone who’s from a family where something being destroyed means that something is just no longer going to be around. I’d be curious to see a chart of vandalism cases broken down by the wealth of the families. Based on my own experiences, and this discussion, I would expect to see less vandalism commited by middle-class families, and more committed by lower- and upper-class families.
Jeff
Vicious bigotry? Please. I suppose it’s also a vicious bigotry to suggest that black people commit more crimes. If I was saying something to the effect of “poor people are inferior, and this inferiority manifests itself in the commiting of more vandalism”, you may have a point. Poverty, in and of itself, is not a character flaw. However, character flaws can frequently result in poverty. If you’re lazy and don’t want to work, there’s a good chance you’re going to be poor. Do a lot of drugs? May be poor. It can also be the result of poor choices. Didn’t feel like finishing highschool? Hey, there’s a good chance poverty will be knocking on your door. Got knocked up when you were 16 by some creep who promptly left? I can reasonably see single, low-income motherhood in your future. These are not absolutes, but they are trends, and calling me a bigot for pointing them out does nothing to enrich the discussion.
Now, if we accept as a given that these types of characteristics and choices are likely to lead to poverty, and we also accept that they are likely to lead to a parenting style that - through either lack of concern or lack of time - doesn’t emphasize respect for others’ property, then is it unreasonable to state, “Hey, maybe there’s a correlation between poverty and tendency to commit vandalism”? I fail to see how that’s bigotry. Sounds more like inductive reasoning to me.
Now, it has been pointed out that there are plenty of wealthy neighborhoods that experience vandalism, as well. While this falls outside my range of experience - I’m from a lower-to-middle-class background, so I’m more accustomed to lower and middle-class areas - it doesn’t surprise me too much. If you’re used to snapping your fingers and having whatever you like magically appear in front of you, if you are deluded into thinking that money - and by extension, property - grows on trees, I can easily see how you would have less of an appreciation for property than someone who’s from a family where something being destroyed means that something is just no longer going to be around. I’d be curious to see a chart of vandalism cases broken down by the wealth of the families. Based on my own experiences, and this discussion, I would expect to see less vandalism commited by middle-class families, and more committed by lower- and upper-class families.
Jeff
How many poverty stricken people are there in organized crime? How moral are robber baron capitalists? How many homes have been vandalized by Catholic Nuns and Buddhist Monks who have taken vows of poverty?
Middleclass kids and teenagers vandalize stuff too and you just have to know where to look for it. Scribblings in textboooks, tiny writing carved into desks, stealing other people’s stuff, and messages written in pen and pencil on any wall available.
Well, jeez, you got me there. Tony Soprano is rich, and Kenneth Lay committed a crime, therefore poor people don’t commit vandalism. I bow to your mad reasoning skillz. Look, my point here isn’t that poor people are evil barbarians who should all be herded into cages. I presented a theory, drawn from anecdotal evidence and common sense, to explain a phenomenon. If you disagree with it, then please explain to me where my logic is faulty. Throwing out non-sequitors and labeling me a bigot doesn’t exactly advance your case. I’ve seen you put out excellently reasoned arguments before, Libertarian. I’m sure you can do better than this.
Anya Marie makes a good point - perhaps middleclass kids vandalize just as much, but they do it in a less conspicuous fashion. While Bob from the ghetto is lugging bricks through the windows of a factory and spraying his name on the bridge, Tommy from the suburbs is carving his name into the table at the local pizza hut. Hey, vandalism has nothing to do with ethics. Maybe poor people commit more vandalism because they have nothing better to do. No money to see a movie, so let’s go break some stuff. I dunno.
Jeff
ElJeffe complained:
To quote, um, you: “Sounds more like inductive reasoning to me.”