Wednesday, 30 January 2008

NOT in support of murder

I must confess I'm disturbed by the many messages of support and sympathy I've seen around the place for the fifty-year old murderer of Pihema Cameron, a man who knifed the fifteen-year old for the offence of tagging his Manurewa fence. This wasn't self-defence, for which he'd have my support. He didn't drag the young tagger from his fence and discipline him, for which he might have my sympathy. He didn't just chastise him, which he certainly deserved. Instead he chased him three-hundred metres down the road and stabbed him through the heart. That's not self-defence -- the only legal defence available to him. That looks more like murder.

For tagging his fence, he murdered him.

I just don't understand how people can support murder.

Now I don't know the murdered youngster from a hole in the ground -- which is where he is now -- but when I was Pihema's age I must confess to having tagged a building or two around South Auckland. I'm not proud of it. It wasn't smart. But I grew up. Pihema Cameron never will.

I just don't understand how people can his support murder.


  1. Just back from second holiday this morning, and found the comments written in the other section abhorrent. I heard about this incident and I really, really hope that there is more to this than what has already come out in the media.

    Elijah Lineberry is also lucky that the comments function on his blog doesn't work, as well... Some so-called libertarians appear to apply a fairly paper-thin moral test in justifying the taking of another's life.


  2. Den,

    I see what you mean - the following are Elijah's comments on the tagger-knifing:

    Is sticking a knife into a feral teenage graffiti artist damaging other people's property such a bad thing? ..(some may see it as doing God's work) ... I do hope I am on the Jury of the brave, gallant businessman accused of murder...

    I used to think Elijah was simply a racist prick; now I start to wonder if he's a sociopath too. He's certainly not a libertarian.

    As for there being more to the story ... the only thing that would justify a knifing would be:

    1. Teen tags fence
    2. Owner comes out and berates him
    3. Teen attacks owner
    4. Owner uses knife on teen in self defense

    That would be justified ... but from the admittedly limited reports so far, I don't think that's what happened.

  3. Let's not make psychiatric diagnoses without even the benefit of either a consultation or a qualification, Duncan.

  4. Fair enough PC, that was over the top - I retract that allegation. He's still a prick though.

  5. No I am not in support of murder, and you don't know the facts of the case either.

    Was it self-defence?

    Who had the knife?

    But if he did kill the kid then he should get life in prison.

  6. If justice could be done and be seen to be done then this killing may never have happened. The homeowner may have felt it was useless to call the police as there is no punishment for tagging. The police would probably not even turn up. Consequently he took the matter into his own hands, which he was clearly not qualified or trained to do and the result was punishment out of all proportion to the crime committed.

    Property crimes were once considered to be grievous offences back in the days of the British Empire and now we can see why. Leaving petty crimes to fester will only lead to chaos with no respect anywhere for property or lives and people will be at each others throats in no time.

    I was wondering Denmt if you thought my comment was abhorrent in the previous thread as I too "hope that there is more to this than what has already come out in the media."

  7. Yes, you're right Mark. I don't have the facts either -- that's what the courts are for.

    I guess I'm reacting to the fact as it stands that people are willing to support a murderer based on facts that as far as they're concerned show he is a murderer.

    It may turn out he isn't a murderer, and by all means put me in the box of those who "hope that there is more to this than what has already come out in the media," but the supporters of murder are offering support based not on what they hope happened - not on the expectation of any possible mitigation for murder -- but on what has already been reported, which isn't pretty.

  8. Well, I stand by my comment on the previous thread.

    Graffiti is a persistant problem, not just for property owners, but also for the thousands of public parks, buildings, fences etc that are regularly and repeatedly vandalised.

    In this way, living in a graffiti-filled environment affects the wellbeing and emotional health of the whole population that is constantly exposed to it. What is more, removing it does nothing to solve the problem, even short-term, because the empty space is often filled yet again by the next daybreak.

    There are areas of Auckland that resemble downtown L.A. and these filty zones are creeping and growing across our city like a cancer.

    Graffiti sends a strong "fuck you" message to society and it is absolutely ridiculous that a huge majority of ordinary law-abiding people should be cowering in their homes powerless to stop it. It is also an utter insult that our so-called 'police' force couldn't give a rat's arse and instead elect to hassle people going about their lawful business on our roads rather than do the job for which they are paid - stopping crime.

    Finally, with this act of defense, it seems that the public are starting to send the message that they are no longer prepared to lamely sit by and be shat on.

    More of these animals should be killed, if thats what it takes to get the message across. At the very least, pour encourager les autres.

    This incident has been very timely. Hopefully it will act as a wake up call to the shites and the lazy police force who up to now couldn't give a shit.

  9. Duncan, as a word to the is best to actually meet someone in person, first, before drawing conclusions about them.

    That is what the 'Adults' do :)

  10. The police would probably not even turn up.

    That's true. The police would turn up in numbers immediately if you flick your son's ear. The police got their priorities fucked up.

  11. It may be that a young man has been stabbed for tagging and if so that's one hell of a price to pay.
    On the other hand, ordinary citizens are being assaulted and killed while going about their lawful business, because the thugs have grown used to a consequence-free environment.
    And that's a hell of a price for innocent people to pay.

  12. I've been thinking about this a lot today.
    How many people realize just what a state of siege citizens live under these days? Where I live, it's not safe to go to bed and leave windows open, not safe to walk around town alone at night, very unsafe to step outside my place of work at night when there are groups of 14-16 gathered, drinking and smoking weed.
    If a carload of youths carve you up on the road, the wisest course of action is to just suck it up, because any display of anger will invite retaliation.
    I'm bloody sick of it--people ought to be free to go about their lawful business without having to tailor their lives to suit the thugs.
    So, somebody gets himself killed for tagging--there's a simple answer to that: leave other people's fucking property alone!Work half a lifetime and get your own and then deface it to your heart's content.

  13. I for one am happy this little prick is dead. One less dole that we have to pay out. This nihilist's life was worth less than nothing. We should send a message to a few more of these sub-human pieces of slime, that we will not be bullied!

  14. KG

    If a person wrecks my property what he has done is negate that time and effort I took to acquire the property. In effect he has destroyed that time of my life that is invested in that property.

    Aside from this he is saying, "stuff you, I can destroy you as I like, I can destroy that which you value."

    Interestingly this is exactly what other forms of force initiation and expropriation do as well. Taxation anyone?

    How do you think such people should be treated?

    BTW, if a man comes into Bruce's house with a weapon and says he does not intend to kill Bruce, only cut off one of Bruce's arms, is Bruce right to kill him?

    What about if it's only an ear he's after?

    Or Bruce's pinkey?

    Or he just wants to wreck Bruce's life with threats and fear? What then?


  15. Seems plenty think Saudi Arabian justice has a lot going for it.

    Of course if it was their kid killed then I'm sure they'd feel the same way. It is one thing to acknowledge and recognise that there is an appalling culture of disrespect and law and order system that is limp wristed in many cases, it is another to say it's ok for grossly disproportionate responses to offences.

  16. Err..lgm, apparently I didn't make myself clear. (nothing new there)
    I agree with what you're saying.

  17. Libertyscott, the problem is with grossly disproportionate response to offences, all right.
    Where little creeps can maim somebody and spend at most a few years in the holiday camps, where thugs can utterly destroy whole familie's lives and walk away with a slap on the wrist..
    When the judicial system lets down the public with soft sentences, then eventually the pendulum is going to swing the other way, as people get bloody sick and tired of seeing the quality of life in this country screwed over by a few ferals.
    Having lived in the Far North for a few years I have a stock answer for those who claim that stories of crime being out of control are exaggerated--go park your nice car overnight in the main street of Kaikohe or Kaitaia and see if it's still there in the morning.
    It won't be, or at the very least the windows will be smashed and the boot lid levered open and the stereo will be missing. And that's just the tip of a huge iceberg of crime up there.
    Is this the kind of country Kiwis want, where lowlifes dictate the terms of how we live? because that's the reality in a lot of places.

  18. kg, I don't disagree with your last comment at all. There is a need to adopt zero tolerance to petty crimes, to take a wide range of approaches to addressing this such as:
    - A points system for offences that beyond a threshold mean long term incarceration, being sequestered from society;
    - Life meaning life for certain degrees of murder;
    - Denying state assistance from criminals;
    - Denying child custody from certain categories of violent and sexual offenders.

    However do not let your anger about that, and legitimate demands for reform of the law and order system to justify mob justice.

    The appropriate right to self defence and to protect your property is to use force necessary under the circumstances as you perceive them to be. You need to defend this in court of course.

    For example, Gay Oakes murdered her violent husband in a cold calculated planned act. While she could have been justified hitting him and retaliating against him when he hit her, murdering him at a time when he was passive was NOT justified.

    The natural end of the philosophy expressed here is that if someone takes a chocolate bar from a shop, the shopkeeper can shoot the thief.

  19. KG

    I wasn't arguing against you. I was interested in your thoughts on the issue and wanted to take the matter up a little further. I was seeking further comment.


  20. Graffiti sends a strong "fuck you" message to society and it is absolutely ridiculous that a huge majority of ordinary law-abiding people should be cowering in their homes powerless to stop it.

    Yes, Dave. Went to see Sweeney Todd on Sunday night, and 'fuck you' was the message being sent to everyone by the brain-dead cunt who couldn't turn off her cellphone, despite repeated requests to do so.
    (Particularly annoying if your a Sondheim fan who wants to relish the intricacies of his score and lyrics.)

    In fact, I'm semi-permanently pissed off by having my nose rubbed in the presence of trolls in human disguise who seem to think they're the pivot around which the whole damn universe turns.

    Unfortunately, the example of the Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a pretty shitty one to follow. And if I have to explain why, you're never going to get it.

  21. Yes, Peter - good post. Your revelation about your own experiences as a 15 year old are sanguine. So when a commenter here says:
    I for one am happy this little prick is dead. One less dole that we have to pay out. This nihilist's life was worth less than nothing. We should send a message to a few more of these sub-human pieces of slime, that we will not be bullied!
    - then he could be talking about someone like you. The prejudices are really quite vile.

    But you did say it wasn't self defence, and we don't really know that either - the facts - the only one who does is the accused. A lot of heat and no light - very talkback radio.

  22. " then he could be talking about someone like [Peter]"

    I simply don't think that's true. People supporting the murder of this young boy are clearly doing so because the boy has a Maori name (Pihema). If the boy was white like Peter (and I know for certain there are white taggers in Auckland) I comfortably predict that NO-ONE would be supporting the murderer or even giving a hint that murdering taggers is OK.

    This idiocy is a symptom of the racism that runs in white New Zealand's veins, pure and simple, yet nobody seems to want to mention this ugly fact.

  23. Robert Winefield31 Jan 2008, 04:58:00

    Actually I think the 'support' you see isn't actually in support of murdering the boy. It's the venting of repressed rage at the gradual disintegration of law and order in certain parts of NZ -- caused by the lip service paid to it by National and Labour governments.

    When the media get around to actually giving the faceless protagonists in this lamentable affair a human face, then you'll see things calm down.

    And those that don't see the reason in PC's argument and still believe that this teen's body on a slab is just revenge for tagging can be legitimately called racist and such. The anonymous poster, for instance, is a likely candidate.

    But I'm afraid that unless a government (and I don't care who) actually does something tangible to deal with the elevating rates of ~BOTH~ property crime and crimes against people then this sort of over-the-top response is going to keep happening.

    But here's the thing, and there's no getting away from it. This Labour government has retroactively changed laws to avoid culpability in the theft of tax-payers money. They don't seem to have any concept about the principle of law and order nor why it is sacred.

    Therefore, expect that the situation will worsen and we will get more of the type of Might-is-right crimes...

  24. In Peter’s day tagging was relatively minor and I notice that he mentions he tagged in “South Auckland”. Nowadays the taggers are penetrating the upmarket central suburbs threatening property values and even defacing people’s luxury speed boats. They also target public utilities like transformers and road signs. I honestly don’t think the anger is particularly racist -it’s more socio-economic. Bands of scoundrels are roaming for miles outside of their squalid zones looking for a showdown. Most Libertarians and other intelligent people pay a fortune with what little is left over after their high salaries and profits have been pilfered by the government to purchase properties far away from these sort of people so that their children can go to nice schools that are tagger free. Schools where learning is cherished in leafy, picturesque and safe streets. We are under tagger assault – what can we do?

  25. Craig

    Regarding the cellphone in teh theatre problem.

    There are several options for dealing with that one.

    In Australia a while back, a guy had a cellphone in the cinema which kept ringing. He kept answering and talking. A member of the audience asked him to either turn it off or leave. When he didn't, the phone was taken from him. The audience member walked out to the cheers of everyone else (except one person). The phone was carefully placed in the gents urinal where it got irrigated. The phone owner was told where the phone was going and the angry man went home after having a good piss. The film was ruined for him anyway I guess, so he must have figured he may as well leave. It was his way of saying, "fuck you too bitch!" Reckon someone learned a lesson that day. The entertainment was partial compensation for the audience. I can't remember what the film was but I remember the incident.

    Not everyone has the option to do this sort of thing, so what alternativs are there? Complain to the theatre managment. Ask for your money back so you can come back another day. At the very least the pepetrator will be asked to leave.

    I know about people buying an icecream and sticking it in the perpetrator's hair, down their back etc. Then the perpetrator needs to go away for a change of clothes. A jumbo cup of ice and sticky Coca Cola is suited to spilling all over bad people. Then there is always the old favourite of sitting behind the naughty one and clapping both hands hard across their ears, BANG! I understand the effect on the recipient is similar to a concussion grenade and is most disorientating. I've seen that one done twice now and it is pretty effective. It looks very uncomfortable.

    The impression I had (certainly in Australia) was that running a cellphone in a theatre was likely to get the phone owner into serious trouble from other audience members. The anger is fast to arrive and physical violence is only moments away.

    I don't know about what occurs locally. Perhaps Kiwis are more likely to tolerate poor behaviour in theatres then are the Australians.


    Graffiti is a problem all over the show. Perhaps if enough of the graffitists end up having really bad things happen to them, the remainder will stop. Property crime of this sort should be severely dealt with; a pity it isn't.


  26. Robert Winefield31 Jan 2008, 07:24:00

    This bullshit started when the government decided arbitrarily to declare that all youth crimes would be dealt with in a special way with special courts and family conferences and such. - No exceptions allowed.

    And that is the problem. Both the National and Labour governments hog tied the judiciary and police this way.

    So the answer to the question "How did it come to this" is: You voted for it.

  27. "This idiocy is a symptom of the racism that runs in white New Zealand's veins, pure and simple, yet nobody seems to want to mention this ugly fact."
    Well, Luke I can't speak for anyone else here, but in my case at least that's utter garbage.
    I don't give a damn if the perp is purple with green spots because it's the behaviour I object to. And I speak as one who has in the past defended Aborigines (as a witness) in court and worked bloody hard to help them find an outlet for their talents in an effort to keep them out of jail.
    The racism slur is too easy to drag out--it's lazy, dishonest and pointlessly insulting. Shove it.
    Robert Winefield hit the nail on the head when he says the comments are the venting of rage against the disintegration of order.

  28. LGM--sorry I misunderstood you.
    And you can buy cellphone jammers over the 'net...;-)

  29. the comments are the venting of rage against the disintegration of order.

    The very thing authoritarians fear the most.

    Most of you people aren't libertarians, you're authoritarians.

  30. Duncan, as a word to the is best to actually meet someone in person, first, before drawing conclusions about them.

    Elijah, this is the blogosphere. Get real.

    I don't like your attitude one little bit bro.

  31. luke h, The suggestion that "People supporting the murder of this young boy are clearly doing so because the boy has a Maori name (Pihema)." is absolute bullshit. kg made the very good point that it is the behaviour that people object to, not the race of the vandal.

    craig ranapia, your example is, frankly, stupid. One cannot compare forgetfulness and/or lack of awareness with the repeated, openly vandalistic and deliberate attacks on people's and public property. 99% of people who have their cellphone ring in a theatre are embarrassed and squirming when it happens. 99% of taggers are proud of what they do and do it deliberately. Your idiotic illogical argument shows that your thinking processes are flawed. Do you actually have a brain, or are you grasping at straws in your attempt to justify antisocial behaviour?

  32. "Most of you people aren't libertarians, you're authoritarians."
    Nonsense--has mummy let you play with the box of labels again?
    No safe and prosperous society is possible without the foundation of order.

  33. craig ranapia, your example is, frankly, stupid. One cannot compare forgetfulness and/or lack of awareness with the repeated, openly vandalistic and deliberate attacks on people's and public property.

    Sorry, Dave, but right back at ya. I think going through life with a (figurative) middle finger extended to all around you is a pretty clear "'fuck you' signal" (to use your words) that others are utterly unworthy of your consideration and respect. How bloody hard is it to turn off a cellphone for a couple of hours?

    And while we're bitching about 'disordered thought processes', I'd apply that label to anyone who so obviously seems to regard a fence as having higher value than a human life. I don't bloody like tagging, or other petty crimes against property any more than I like petty discourtesy. But that's not a justification for murder.

  34. Back in 1987 I got attacked by three 14-15 year olds in the Square in Palmerston North when I was walking hom from work on a mid-summer Friday night (one white boy and two maori boys). One hit me in the head with a small tomohawk and another stabbed my stomach with a screwdriver while the other just punched me. I was lucky and got away with a scratch along my gut, smashed glasses and a grazed head (I managed to throw myself sideways enough to not get the axe embedded in my temple). Those kids got away with virtually no punishment. The sum total of their sentence was restitution for my glasses of which I received $17.53.

    Now, I personally would take no chances with a kid of that age on my property who was in the act of either vandalising or robbing it. Having experienced how easy it is to beome a permanent victim, I'd rather be alive in prison than dead on my front lawn.

    The guy may have overreacted but until the facts are out I reserve judgement on him. Now I will speculate. Perhaps the kid said "I'll do you" or something along those lines. As far as I am concerned, from experience, I would believe him and act BEOFRE him if I could and take my chances with a jury trial. Like I said, I'd rather my kids visited me in prison than at the cemetary.

    Brian Smaller

  35. i definitely know the boy, and as the witness has mentioned to who im not sayng, but he did not even start to tag and did not provoke the murderer to kill, but all he screamed was to let him go. what i cant understand is that pihema is a fast runner, so how can a 50 year old chase an athletic boy? to the point to kill?

  36. craig, I have seldom experienced a more idiotic lack of logic than reading your comparison of graffitiing to cellphone use in theatres. You're off the planet.

    Also, its not just the bloody fence that has the value. Its the peace of mind and the feeling of belonging, harmony and safety of everyone who lives in and passes by the area. Twit.

  37. Peter, I'm usually not in agreement with you about a lot of stuff, but that was a good post!

  38. I agree with your comments PC, although I do have difficulty understanding how people can eulogise the child at hand by calling him 'a good normal kid' when clearly he wasn't. He was a vandal, but vandals don't deserve to be murdered. They deserve a good kick up the backside.

  39. Punishment must be in proportion to the crime. Those who say a tagger deserved to be murdered probably support mandatory minimums for drug dealers. These people are no friends of libertarians (who believe in strict enforcement of rights) or anyone who believes in justice. They are unable to see past the crime and look at the motive.
    They could do with more empathy, because it seems as though they are consumed with rage at the acts these people commit. Calling a human who tags an "animal?" Whats next, political opponents?
    If we can't even come to the conclusion that this (murdering a tagger) is immoral how are we meant to discuss more complex examples? Its a complete over-reaction on the part of the property owner and no consequentalist nonsense can justify it (e.g. "we are sending a message to taggers"). Sad that such a huge threat can result from Not-PC's OBVIOUS point.

  40. Also, its not just the bloody fence that has the value. Its the peace of mind and the feeling of belonging, harmony and safety of everyone who lives in and passes by the area. Twit.

    Gee, meet me behind the bike sheds after school and say that. Your mix of playground machismo and irrational metaphysical twaddle isn't convicing me to change my mind.

    Frankly, Dave, my sense of "belonging, harmony and safety" would be greatly enhanced by knowing that apologists for armed and murderous vigilantes are far, far away from me.

    Or to put it in 'logical' term you'd understand: Yo Mama's fat, and you're totally gay.

  41. He was a vandal, but vandals don't deserve to be murdered. They deserve a good kick up the backside.
    - Are you supporting corporal punishment here? Perhaps birching for taggers would be a good punishment.

    Punishment must be in proportion to the crime.
    -Why? Who says so? Are you supporting capital punishment here? Executing murderers would fit this criteria.

    No one seems to consider the deterrent aspect of punishment these days.

    I think a lot of people first reacted to the news of the killing with some pleasure because of the exasperation they are feeling about the extent of ugly graffiti. Upon reflection they realise it’s a terrible tragedy for all those involved and murder is a ghastly thing. Even Elijah Lineberry has changed his tune. The killer must bitterly regret his actions - who would want to be in his shoes?. Let this be a lesson to all of us not to let anger cloud our judgement.

  42. RW, your first paragraph says it all.

    As it happens, this incident occurred the day after my 94 year old grandmother's fence was sprayed; the same mark was also sprayed across the front of the brand new house across the road from her. And when I say brand new, I mean it. The owners haven't even moved in yet. Just lovely.

    I detest the term 'tagging'. It's a euphemism for property defacement or even property assault. And 'graffiti artist' is just bullshit.

    Some of us respect the notion of property rights & others make excuses for criminal behaviour. Honestly, I could kick that little bastard's ass into the middle of next week for what he did to my Nana.

    But this terrible reaction to the Auckland kid's murder (by some) is indeed the result of frustration, helplessness and anger at years of pathetic policymaking from both sides.

    You reap what you sow, kids.

  43. You reap what you sow, kids.

    Tslking about other people's karma is one thing, Sus -- not quite so much fun when it comes around to bit you in the arse. keep that in mind, would you -- because I'd really hate someone to decide your grandmother is a waste of space who'd be vastly improved by a knifing.

    If that offends you, Sus, take a deep breath and ask yourself why.

  44. Sometimes violence is necessary to stop criminal acts that individually seem hardly deserving of violence. For instance if vandals attacked your property night after night and all other measures failed. If the murdered boy could be brought back to life yet the price to pay for this miracle was that he tagged your grandmothers house every day until they died then you might not pay that price for his life.

  45. Roger Rogerson5 Feb 2008, 07:02:00

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  46. Whatever Mr Rogerson's real name is, he should consider finding another place to leave his disgusting comments.

  47. Roger Rogerson5 Feb 2008, 09:28:00

    It is Roger.

    There was nothing obscene or disgusting what I wrote back there. I compared the tagger tagging the house and the old guy tagging the tagger. Both of them leave a mark and damage the property. I asked for return opinion to the idea that the old guy is punished by making him remove his tag by stitching up the tagger's body and washing the body. Then he get a stern warning and go home. If you disagree then say so. Better to explain yourself instead of get angry just because you do it.

    Roger and out


  48. Way too old for offence, Craig. But you've got what I said completely wrong.

    I do not believe that boy deserved what happened, nor did I say that.

    My last comment was in relation to the preceding paragraph; not the kid's actions.

  49. Mr Rogerson,
    If you see no difference between a dead body and a live one, there's very little hope for you, or for seeing your comments appearing here.

  50. Sus:

    If I grabbed the wrong end of the stick and started gnawing on it, my apologies.

    May your Nana meet her end with a cocktail in one hand and a cabana boy in the other. Wait a mo'... she can go get her own deathbed fantasy, 'cause that one's mine. :)

  51. Roger Rogerson5 Feb 2008, 13:49:00

    Mr PC

    You didn't know there is a difference? There is a difference between a boat and a plane and a cat and a mouse too.

    What would you say if the old guy came out and he saw the tagger tagging and he has a complete heart attack and falls over dead because of what he saw the tagger doing to his house? Would you say that tagger is a murderer? Or would it be that the tagger gets punished by making him clean off the tags on the old guy house and a stern telling off and then go home? Now everything is good again? It was an accident and the tagger says he never meant that old guy to be dead like that even though he tagged his house and made him have the heart attack.

    So now put it around the other side. What if the old guy is making his mark on the tagger and the tagger dies by an accident? The old guy was only trying to tag him so he would understand why it is not right to tag the old guy's house. Then he died from all his blood leaking out of the tag. But the old guy never made to do it like that. It just turned out that way.

    If you ask the old guy if he wanted to murder a tagger I bet he will say to you that he did not want that. I bet he only wanted to make him see how bad it was or how angry he was or even just chase him away and never come back to the house ever again. He tried to do it but it went wrong. The tag was too deep. Or if you like he made too much of a mark on his hide.

    It is kind of like when that time when that other guy got killed when he went andd had a tattoo because the tattoo was the wrong one and the ink made his heart stop because the ink was too deap and it was allergic to him. Accidents do happen.

    So what was the tagger doing there at that house in the first place? He should not have been there doing what he was up to at all. Imagine if you are found hanging around the women's toilet. Unless you are the cleaner and your sign is up how come you are even there when you should not even be there?

    You know how you said you were into tagging. Did you ever go back to and make it right with those people who you tagged? Or is it that it is a worry that those people are still annoyed and they are still out there somewhere and you owe them?

    In case you want to know I never tagged anywhere or anything of anyone elses.

    Roger and over and out


  52. Roger Rogerson5 Feb 2008, 21:23:00


    Hypocrit maybe?

    Roooger and out


  53. This incident highlights the clash between Libertarian principles and collectivist ones. Those who applaud the death as a victory against taggers are viewing it through collectivist eyes – the tagger pays the price for the sins of all the other taggers (one collective versus another, homeowners versus taggers). The Libertarian on the other hand sees the case as a more isolated incident and focuses on the individual - murder is the ultimate sin as it robs the individual of everything.

    This is similar to the Ali Panah case where many expressed their distinctly collectivist viewpoint - Ali should be thrown out of the country as an example to others, he broke the ‘rules’ he should die sort of thing (one collective versus another, NZr’s versus illegal immigrants). A Libertarian should simply see Ali as an individual seeking freedom.

    Collectivist thinking and action protects individuals from personal responsibility and encourages all sorts of atrocious behaviour. It’s a hard habit to break. This blog has certainly helped me recognise my own collectivist sympathies that I now struggle against daily. I don’t always overcome them but I’m working on it.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.