I think both your example and parent's example are distinctly different from my example in terms of motivations.

In my (grandparent) example, motivation appeared to be purely money. In parent's example, motivation was mostly transportation and convenience. And a total selfish disregard of everyone else but themselves is present, just like in my example. In your example, motivation is several things that take a fair amount of time to unwrap. And it really depends on type of tagging. Something that Banksy tags, for instance, is on a different level than some "420 blaze it" that you would see on a highway underpass.

It's fair to say in all three cases that the person doing the bad is being callous - a disregard of the property owner's time and money occurs. In the former cases, it's from a space of likely callous disrespect. But in the latter cases, like the Banksy-esque ones, it's intentional.

I'm not sure exactly what I'm trying to say here beyond that tagging isn't just a knee-jerk bad thing. I guess I want to say "people who are taggers generally suck, but there are a few people who are awesome that also tag so don't throw all people who do tagging into a single bucket of suck

tagging is 99.9999% a bad thing. I challenge you to walk down Mission St in san francisco and find a single instance of Bansky level commentary. Also, I don't define what Bansky does as tagging. Tagging is basically writing your name/nickname/logo or just writing something meaningless like "fuck the man".

That is not to say I think Bansky's property destruction is ok. I'm happy to see the art, not happy to have someone's property destroyed. I'm really happy when artist get permission (and sponsored) to make street art. Plenty of that in SF.

To anyone that disagrees tell me where you live and I'll be happy to come tag your house and your car and your laptop PC and see if you really find it ok