Beauty is in the eye of the beholder my friend, so if you use my property for your purposes, you better make sure that I think it's beautiful, not you or anyone else!

If, like you say, art is defined subjectively (by the person that perceives it), then a most beautiful & thought provoking piece of grafiti can be art to some and pure crap to others.

She could have been hiding a belly full of illicit drugs! Cops need people to comply. Although I don't understand why the driver has to sign anything! Guilt is proven by evidence, not the suspect's own signature! That's backward bullshit from a dictator's regime!

Well, if you've got permission and you've done it properly, then it's not called vandalism, you can call it whatever the heck you want really!

The "context" and "edge" you're referring to is called the thrill of defying authority, of rebellion, of eating the forbidden apple... it's nice to get yourself a rush, but if I catch those bastards, they'll end up hating art for the rest of their potentially happy lives... :)

By all means use the proper medium for the art. Don't tag on people's property without permission.

Talented artists should use a proper medium for the art so budding junior artists could follow their lead. Their talent puts them in a position of leadership whether they like it or not, and they should use this position to influence others for good. What's wrong with hiring out a gallery and setting it up to look just like the ghetto walls on the street?

freedom... what freedom are you speaking of? The freedom to damage other people's property? I don't remember it being one of the articles in the UDHR... must have missed it...

If I catch one of those fucks I'd begin a most enjoyable torture schedule ever filmed in the history of mankind. It'll be streaming live on utube for as long as I decide to keep him!

First I'd remove each fingernail with my teeth, then I'd sterilize them with salt of course, you don't want them to fester and go smelly... then I'd ask him which hand he used to tag my car and if he didn't want to tell me immediately, i'd break a finger at the farthest joint. Once he kindly tells me the hand he used, I'd strip that hand of all of the skin and then set my pet rat (which i'd been starving for the purpose) on it... hmmm.. after that I should probably let him go back to his mother... he'd probably not draw anything for the rest of his life... shame though cos taggers have such potentials to be great artists...

This topic title sounds like the title of a survey, but here's my 2 cents:

I'd love to be free of a government, but then we'd need to enforce that anarchy somehow, so then we'd still governed... doh!

Terrorism works but only against an occupation.

So if your country is occupied by a foreign force, then terrorism works wonders. The aim of the occupation is to apply the foreign brand of order, but if this cannot happen, then the occupation is a failure. The Vietnam War is a classic example where terrorism worked and now I think Iraq is the same. The public never supports the occupation of a country where their sons and daughters die on a daily basis due to roadside bombs and suicide bombers. At least not for long.

Terrorism on the other hand cannot do anything to take land that your people are not living on. That's the job of missiles and tanks.