Vandalism and America’s Anti-Business Climate

When wealth producers are perceived as ‘owing’ to society, the pointless defacement and theft directed toward them soon follows.

By Scott Beyer of The Independent Institute. 

"When people talk about America’s “anti-business climate,” they frame it as a policy problem, centered on high taxes, suffocating regulations, and labor mandates. But America’s anti-business climate is also a cultural disposition. Long before any legislation passes, a deeper attitude takes hold that frames wealth producers as, at best, lucky beneficiaries of an unfair system, and at worst, moral wrongdoers who have taken more than they deserve. Once that premise is accepted, a troubling chain reaction follows. If success is illegitimate, then harms committed against successful people and businesses begin to feel justified. Vandalism becomes “punching up”; theft becomes “redistribution”; and other street-level maladies are similarly rationalized. 

Whether this mindset originates in culture and seeps into politics, or vice versa, is a chicken-and-egg question. In practice, the two reinforce each other. Political rhetoric demonizes wealth, cultural resentment intensifies, and politicians respond to that resentment, resulting in disorder.

No state better embodies this dynamic than California.

At a policy level, California checks every box associated with hostility toward business. The state has a tough regulatory regime, and the highest top marginal income tax rate in the nation. Now there is a ballot measure that proposes a “wealth tax” of 5% on anyone worth $1 billion or more, which has already caused several billionaires, including the founders of Google, to move operations from the state. 

This policy environment does not exist in a rhetorical vacuum; California’s political leadership has actively framed wealth creation as suspect. It’s unsurprising, then, that California is also a place where widespread vandalism and petty crime are directed at symbols of wealth and commerce.

Consider the ubiquitous graffiti in cities like Oakland and Los Angeles. This is not random teenage mischief; much of it explicitly targets businesses, housing developments, and commercial corridors, and sometimes even has anti-gentrification messages. In that sense it is a form of ideological vandalism.

Or take the case of In-N-Out Burger, a famously apolitical, working-class-friendly company that almost never closes locations. In January 2024, the company permanently shut down its Oakland restaurant, citing relentless crime. According to In-N-Out’s own statement, employees and customers were subjected to repeated car break-ins, robberies, and vandalism.

Then there are the mass car break-ins and smash-and-grab retail store thefts that have become part of San Francisco’s reputation. Of course, so-called quality of life crimes were deprioritized by former city District Attorney Chesa Boudin. While California’s other law enforcement bureaucrats may not be as extreme as Boudin, the soft prosecutions that occur across the state show that they are similarly unbothered by such theft.

A similar dynamic exists closer to home in Charlottesville, Virginia—a city that, in many ways, functions like a mini San Francisco.

Charlottesville is saturated with social justice language: wealth redistribution, climate justice, systemic oppression. One recent, twice-elected mayor built her political brand around racial agitation, framing the city’s present-day inequalities as ongoing moral crimes committed by one racial group against another. Another councilor has used his platform to stage protests against a beloved local business, demanding “living wages”.

Homelessness illustrates the issue most starkly. Charlottesville’s downtown pedestrian mall has seen a visible increase in homelessness, along with the predictable antisocial behavior. Yet the prevailing attitude is that the homeless are owed space, tolerance, and resources—while the businesses operating nearby are expected to absorb the costs. During a recent debate over an anti-camping ordinance, a business advocate attempting to speak during public testimony was shouted down.

In such an environment, disorder is inevitable. Loitering, vandalism, and break-ins have become increasingly common in areas where the homeless concentrate. I work for a company that has operated successfully in Charlottesville for decades. Our company vehicles have suffered slashed tires and keyed doors. We have even considered removing our signage, because merely being visibly successful appears to invite hostility.

The widespread keying of Tesla vehicles over the past year provides the ultimate example. These acts were pure zero-sum destruction, with the only “gain” being that perpetrators could attack a symbol— Elon Musk—that represents everything they hate: wealth, intelligence, and productive success. 

The broader takeaway is clear. When society frames certain successful people or institutions as illegitimate, it creates a premise for harming them. While outright violence remains rare and widely condemned—the Luigi Mangione case being a counter-example—smaller clandestine harms proliferate: vandalism, theft, intimidating protests, reputational smears, and ultimately confiscatory taxation. Each step becomes easier once the initial moral judgment has been made.

Left-wing politicians often stoke these sentiments, sometimes cynically, sometimes sincerely. In either case, the results are visible in the crime and economic stagnation found in many progressive cities. An anti-business culture does not stay abstract for long."