You are attacking something the author did not say. I will assume that this strawman was unintentional (if I were to instead assume that you were acting in bad faith then there would no point responding to you; if you are in fact acting in bad faith, please take a moment to consider why it is that your argument requires a distortion of the truth to be defensible).

The author does say that trespassing on private property, owned by corporations, is not wrong like other forms of "trespass" may be. His argument has one critical nuance that you ignore, however: he says that trespass is not wrong when it is an act that reclaims fundamentally public spaces from private ownership to make them accessible to everyone. A park, a corner between two buildings, and even a view of the city are deeply public things.

Your office (especially the specific area in which you work and the items there) are not, and have never been, public spaces. These specific areas and items are also (by most interpretations) private property, which is another criterion that author has for property that should not be violated. To say that the author suggests that your office should be trespassed upon is an assertion ignorant of these components of the author's argument.

Quote from the article: "Needless to say, this kind of trespassing is usually bad, unless you’re breaking into one of Jeff Bezos’ homes."

So it's ok to break into your house as long as you are very rich?

People breaking into one of my many unused houses? I'd say it's a nice problem to have.

I don't have many unused houses, however my family does have a tiny summer cottage that we don't use in the winter since it's not insulated and so on.

Coming to it in the spring and finding that some kids decided to have a party in there and almost burned it down wasn't exactly a nice feeling. I certainly hope that it doesn't happen to anyone else, including mr Bezos, however much you may disagree with his business practices.

This is a really awful attitude. It's not okay to break into people's stuff, even if he's "mister evil big-corp". Especially since kids having parties tend to leave a horrible mess. Stuff usually gets stolen, too.

There's a deep sense of personal violation that comes from having one's house broken into; while that is probably lesser for people with more than one house, it's still wrong. Most people who support this sort of thing wouldn't loan their houses out for parties, I notice; if one wouldn't lone out his own house, why might he think it better to loan out Mr. Bezos'?

well, so long as they don't mistakenly break into Jeff's actually-occupied house and accidentally traumatize his wife and kids, I suppose he'd be pretty chill about it.

Rumor has it, that Jeff Bezos has homes that are being renovated for years on end, and that aren't used for living in. I think that's what the author meant.

I think he means it's ok so long as the building project is falling massively behind schedule. Crappy builders need to be punished somehow, and the easiest way is to strike terror into the hearts of their clients.

That’s an actual joke. Also one that’s kicking up (as opposed to one simply reproducing, say, racism or sexism), so I’m quite ok with it.

The author also singles out a corporation for owning a large number of prestigious offices (quote below). Why do you think that is?

Don’t waste your time and everyone else’s time spending nearly a paragraph with a bad faith disclaimer. It’s super annoying to read so many arguments with “assuming you’re acting in good faith” bullshit.

Specifically addressed in the article:

"I’m not talking about breaking into your neighbor’s house at 3:00 a.m. to rummage through their stuff for drugs or money. This is the mental image that most of us probably associate with trespassing—"

However if you were making a "tragedy of the commons" reference, then I'd be more inclined to agree.

Edited to add: But, yes, the article's headline and intro is a front for the author's argument against growing corporate ownership of the planet.

I tend to agree with the point being made, so I'm less likely to get snarky about "evil corporations" etc.

The author specifically differentiates between personal (neighbour-owned and not ok to trespass) and private (corporate-owned and fair game) property. Presumably his office is in the latter category.

Realize, you are talking about a publication that was started by a Kickstarter campaign that raised $16,000 [1], which is assembled in the living room of the EiC's apartment [2], and has a handful of full-time employees at most. The author doesn't have the sort of office you presume he does.

[1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/804992239/current-affai...

[2] https://www.theringer.com/2017/3/23/16044958/new-left-media-...

Well I do have an office of the sort that you're presuming that I'm presuming that he does, and so does most of the people in this thread, even the ones railing against the evils of The System. Unless he's doing this thing out of his mom's basement, I'm sticking with my wish for stoner teens.

I think there's a potential irony here in that the author would probably be fine with stoner teens wandering in, in that they'd more likely be kindred spirits in their railing against the evils of The System.

Stoner teens would grow up to be part of the author's target demographic.

Your analogy would be better if it was along the lines of a corporate boardroom-stalker trespassing their way into the author's home office, complaining about how cramped it is and that the view is worthless, but then still contemplating buying it up as an investment for the future.

The author's argument (and it takes a while for the article to get there) is much more systemically fundamental than "corporate trespass good", "personal trespass bad".

>I think there's a potential irony here in that the author would probably be fine with stoner teens wandering in, in that they'd more likely be kindred spirits in their railing against the evils of The System.

I doubt it - some unknown dudebro passed out on your carpet in a pool of their bodily fluids seems like too much to deal with at 3am for a poor reporter with writer's block.

I think you're confusing "stoner" with hardcore alcoholic, or perhaps a heroin/meth user?

What's there for me to presume? You stated your presumption quite clearly:

"... private (corporate-owned and fair game) property. Presumably his office is in the latter category."

"Corporate owned" being ok to trespass doesn't seem quite right. I would think it would be more like actively used vs. abandoned. Breaking into an active warehouse or corporate office seems to be a lot more dubious than breaking into an abandoned factory.

Their first example is entering a hotel meant for the uber wealthy and going to the top floor, but go ahead and build you straw man I guess...

"According to Forbes, not only is Brookfield the biggest office landlord in London and Los Angeles, it “quietly owns entire city skylines in places like Toronto and Sydney.” In New York, it owns the massive World Financial Center complex (whose real name is Brookfield Place) in Manhattan, along with the enormous skyscraper at One Liberty Plaza (which was built atop the bones of the Singer Building, the tallest building ever torn down)."

*Other than the 2 World Trade Center towers.

Trespassing != breaking and entering

are you assuming that the author is suggesting the former while I am suggesting the latter? I even explicitly used the word trespassing!

Whoosh