I think there are a number of problems with this form of violent protest. First, I don't see how this vandalism accomplishes anything positive. It doesn't help anyone. It doesn't punish BP. It doesn't conserve a single drop of oil. It doesn't draw attention to an unknown problem (anyone who doesn't know about the Gulf oil spill is living in a cave). At best, this energy is wasted and should have been used on more productive endeavors.

Second, the violence is against a relatively innocent third party. The Gallery in no way causes BPs actions. They neither buy nor sell from them. Virtually nothing in the universe would be different if they had refused BPs donations. They are 'guilty' of accepting a gift. I seriously doubt there is anyone who thinks, 'well, the oil spill is terrible, but BP is a fine organization because they donate to Tate.' It is hard for me to see why 'accepting legal donations from an environmentally reckless company' would merit this style of violence.

Third, this sort of 'protest' undermines the public order. If it is acceptable to vandalize the property of those whose environmental policies we disagree with, can we expand that to other moral causes? It seems to me that there are people involved in a broad range of causes that are equally confident in the righteousness and importance of their cause, but if all of them feel free to resort to violence it would hurt us all and we would descend into anarchy.

Fourth, we live in liberal democracies that have legitimate and peaceful ways of engaging in dialogue and protest. What exactly does the 'violence' involved in the protest gain the environment or the protesters that couldn't have been accomplished without it?

To sum up: In liberal democracies where numerous peaceful and legal routes of protest are possible, I don't think violent property damage is ever justified to 'get a point across'. They should use their time organizing, voting, protesting, and conserving in positive and legal ways.

Some people take the line that any woman who wears this outfit is irretrievably caught up in a submissive relationship with men, and so the costume should be banned, or at least discouraged. Any woman who says she really wants to wear it is suffering from false consciousness, and the same policy applies. But the evidence is that many woman want to wear it, and say they feel liberated by wearing it, and say with some plausibility that it is the women who are wearing clothes which they think are alluring to men who are in a submissive relationship, not them.

I often disapprove of the clothes people wear. On cold days young women often wear very few clothes since they wish to display their bodies. They have on their feet shoes which look dangerous, even if they are not. There is now an enthusiasm for tattoos, and I am sure they are often dangerous and certainly painful things to have applied to the skin. I remember in the past having a discussion in class about Muslim clothes and the class all highly disapproved of this sort of subjugation to a certain style, while at the same time their faces and bodies rattled with a huge number of piercings that they had enthusiastically paid to have applied to them.

There is a lot to be said for the traditional liberal policy that if something does not harm anyone else, you should allow someone to do it. If I want to walk down my road with a sheet over my body, or dressed as Superman, or as a giant rabbit, I think I ought to be free to do so.

You agree that a person should derive some benefit from their own efforts, in the form of private property. But then property constitutes a benefit only if and insofar as one can use it in ways one values. Money is worth less, for instance, the fewer and less valued are the things one can purchase with it. One thing many people value is the option to give money to others, e.g. through bequest. By taking this option away, we would be taking away a valued benefit -- not merely from those who might otherwise inherit, but also from those who might otherwise bequeath. So there is something to be said in favor of allowing inheritance.

This reason must be balanced against others, though. The institution of inheritance tends to aggravate inequality, for example. In view of such competing reasons, the kind of compromise many countries have adopted -- to allow but also substantially to tax inheritance -- seems a plausible one. A complete ban on inheritance would, in any case, be very difficult to enforce effectively without considerable additional constraints and surveillance.