To me personally, it sounds really bizarre. I cannot understand this way of thinking, but I guess it's just a matter of cultural differences.

I suspect most graffiti doesn't actually have this twisted motivation. It's just selfishness by thoughtless people wanting to advertise themselves, like dogs marking their territory. This intellectual rationalisation is more of a projection by resentful people with a poisonous worldview.

Commentary is graffiti. We're all selfish dogs marking our territory, advertising that we exist.

I think you may have agreed with them a long time ago, when you chose your username. Have you perhaps become wealthier, in the interim?

Maybe just more mature.

Do you believe you're giving graffiti artists even a thimbleful of good faith by comparing them to dogs?

Is your concern that a thimbleful of good faith for vandals is too much or too little?

Too little, I tend to be highly suspicious of anyone that compares humans to dogs, it's usually not a good sign. Let alone for such a petty crime.

That explains why I see graffiti in all the rich neighborhoods and none in the poor neighborhoods </s>.

You don't see graffiti in rich neighborhoods either because you're describing the suburbs where nobody really lives (as a measurement of people per square kilometer) or because rich neighborhoods get immediate attention by cleaners (or the rich hire private cleaners).

There's plenty of graffiti in Manhattan, have you looked up how much it costs to rent there lately?

This is an interesting point, but I push back a bit. First, "Manhattan" is much larger than most people realise. There is almost no graffiti in the rich neighborhoods (Upper West/East, etc.), but there is plenty of graffitti in the more iffy neighborhoods (East Villiage, ABCs, SOHO, etc.). It pretty much scales with wealth -- richer has less graffiti. Second, specific to this post about San Francisco, there is almost no graffiti in the suburban areas out west (Sunset, Richmond) and wealthy neighborhoods like Russian Hill or The Marina, but loads of graffiti in The Mission, Potrero Hill, and SoMa.

You really think that the majority of taggers are thinking this deep? It’s mostly teenagers in high school that are mimicking others thinking “I’m so cool”. It fights nothing regardless. We can assign it value out of our asses all day and take some documentary as the truth, but if you think a kid writing a random scribble on the bart window or a bar bathroom, or a small business’s door deserves to take any of that back from the “caste” what are we talking about? The city is everyone’s, the tagger claiming a wall is as selective as what you claim the city is doing. Why do they think some random surface is more theirs than everyone else’s? I find tagging more selfish than what the city is doing.

> You really think that the majority of taggers are thinking this deep?

Nope, not something I thought up at all, this is what I discovered after talking to a lot of taggers and street artists as a result of my photography obsession leading me into the skater scene. I used to think tagging was just gangs marking territory (in reality only a small portion of it is).

What I have noticed is that a certain class of people have formed an immutable idea of taggers, skaters, and street artists, and that idea includes that for whatever reason all these sorts of folks are stupid. I've found that to be not the case at all.

I was a skater myself and many of the people I used to hang with would be into tagging. None of us were rich, if anything the taggers around me had more privileges than the not taggers. I couldn’t afford the expensive markers or spray cans for example. I don’t know what you mean by certain class of people.

This is just whitewashing crime.

The people being hurt by this aren't the millionaire or billionaire tech caste.

I'm reminded of when rioters were trashing stores in response to George Floyd's death. The usual justification was "oh business insurance will cover it, they need an outlet for their emotions" Well, the only grocery store in a predominantly black neighborhood was out of commission for weeks due to damage. A black owned liquor store was burned down, and he didn't have insurance. Lots of similar stories on Lake Street. The people who deserved that harm the very least got it the most.

I really don't understand the connection between street art and the George Floyd protests. I understand that you generally don't like the idea of people operating outside of the State-mandated heteronormative way, in which case I say, the best way to prevent a riot is not have cops murder people.

We whitewash crime every day here, for example theft of labor value. It's not a crime in the USA but it is a crime insomuch as it's unethical.

I'm curious how you determine the value of your labor.

> how you determine the value of your labor.

Me too, but it's impossible to do so in any meaningfully accurate, objective, measurable way.

What works is when you negotiate with your employer and both come to an agreement on what labor you will provide and what you'll get paid for it.

Nobody has ever found a better system.

You said "value" of labor, not salary. Salary indicates at best, market rate, but often not even that. Value is something else entirely, and that something seems to be completely disconnected from capitalist measures of market price. See: investment banker salaries vs teachers. See also: the price of a monkey JPEG. Even capitalist value is disconnected from market price, see the current stock market.

> Nobody has ever found a better system.

Anarchists in Spain did in 1936 when they syndicalized the majority of the economy. BTW Walter I'm not sure you remember but I'm fairly certain you've replied these exact words to me before.

> Value is something else entirely

Value is what you're willing to pay for something, and what you're willing to accept as payment.

> Even capitalist value is disconnected from market price, see the current stock market.

The value of a stock is the market price. There is no other value.

The value of a teacher is what you're willing to pay for him, and what he is willing to accept. The value of government paid teachers is not knowable, since the money to pay them is forcibly extracted.

> I'm fairly certain you've replied these exact words to me before.

I've written this many times here!

Your confidence doesn't mean you're right. Your definition of value doesn't include a mechanism to determine the difference between contextual value, an awkwardness obvious in your comment, after all, the stock market wouldn't exist unless the value for a seller was different than the value for a buyer, or why else would the buyer buy? There's more than just price involved in the consideration.

Also, the word "value" is used outside of monetary contexts. If you said "I value you" to a loved one, I doubt even an avout capitalist libertarian such as yourself would be so heartless as to put a dollar price on that "value." So no, value is not just "what you're willing to pay." That's a Chicago school of economics lie that has been allowed to determine the mechanics of neoliberal society.

In any case this isn't really a conversation if you just keep saying the same thing over and over again, "value is cost," using basically undifferentiated examples.

If value was the price no trade would be possible. The seller needs to value the cash more than the good and vice versa.

> Nobody has ever found a better system.

Unions negotiating on behalf of the mass of workers works better.

That's very debatable.

It works here in Scandinavia.