Zig-zag,

"1) Property destruction has always been a weapon of resistance for those who don't own property. Property is theft, by a few of the many."

I would argue that "property" is a term used to refer to privately held productive property. The space in question here is not private property it is non-productive public property with public access. I am not defending a right to private property, I do not believe such a right exists.

2) Grafitti, detournement, reclaiming space, etc. are methods WITHIN A STRUGGLE, whereby we reject both legalist or moral arguements. ie These ideas of right and wrong are fluid, and are often subject to change. Case in point that grafitti is an important social movement in the US, and everywhere militarized space exists. However, classics both deny that ..our own history.. while generating absolute morals
quote "respect for other people's property is important" end quote
which implicitly negate a legitimate usurping of a space that is contested."

First, I did not make a moral argument. I said that it would be more effective to choose a different form of political action. Second, this space is already in the public realm. Last, although grafitti can be a political tool I believe it to be innaccurate to proclaim the current grafitti trend in our country as political. Most of it is not. The vast majority of what is out there is put up by bored teens putting there name out everywhere to become a bigger fish in the pond. Thrill seeking, yes. Political, weak at best. The method chosen here WITHIN THE STRUGGLE has hurt the STRUGGLE.

"3) One might say that criticizing 'vandalism' is a classic liberal position: holding ideals of 'equality' and 'fairness' up as replacement for an understanding of social struggles or situations, in which one is often induced into fighting for what they already have( maintaining the status quo) rather than for a destruction of the power structure."

One might say this argument would be fine if we were speaking about private productive property but we aren't. Your argument as a whole is a defense of luddites. While it is nice to understand the perspective of the luddite I would argue to them, just as I argue to you, that there are more effective "methods" to resist oppression than destroying a public space intended for public use. This action is counter productive in my opinion.