If this is the future of vandalism and criminality, I say we let it be normalized yesterday. Not much of a "violation of others" to put some planters down in a lots that's had nothing but litter blowing through it for 2+ years, and a "violation" that's quite easily reconciled if the owner wants to remediate it.

I find it just as much of a violation - a much more egregious violation - to let land go to shit in areas where people live, unmanaged and blighted, with no regard for the people that actually inhabit that space. No, I'm not making a legal argument in a court of law here.

I think the right way to do it is to first advocate for a change in the law, and not just violate someone’s private property.

Just put some planters down and leave contact info. If someone wants them removed, pick them up. We're not talking about taking a backhoe to someone's manicured lawn.

> If this is the future of vandalism and criminality, I say we let it be normalized yesterday.

Would be vandalism if I hit somebody's with a bat in their back?.

And if I destroy their back seeding kudzu in their home, for them to remove it for the rest of their lives?

What If I seed flowering thistle?.

Seed bombs are a moronic trend from people without gardens that are playing to be gardeners, without a clue of the responsibility of keeping a collection of life beings.

I haven't said a thing about "seed bombs" - your strawman argument where people are maliciously planting the least desirable invasives is a bit different than neighborhood residents putting native wildflower seed in unmanaged dirt patches.

Private property is whatever we collectively decide it is. We can only build infrastructure such as railways and highways because we collectively decided those are okay to build on private property. We can do the same with anything we consider essential for the common good.

sounds a little too much like communism for my liking :shrug:

private property should be whatever the owner decides it is

Yes, we can decide it collectively, through the political process. But individuals should not be allowed to just do whatever they want in violation of other individuals. If I think your tree isn’t great, is it okay if I were to come chop it down? Where does that line of thinking end?

Since you are not a fan of private property, maybe we should collectively decide that your property is no longer yours but a public botanical garden and ofcourse you don't get to live there (for the greater good)

Sounds fun right :)

Consider the claim more thoroughly:

>We can only build infrastructure such as railways and highways because we collectively decided...

Therefore a landowner cannot build without collective approval? I disagree. Obviously a single individual can improve land and create value independently of a collective.

Another popular claim is that property only exists because of state enforcement. Again, a single individual can enter a frontier and improve land. This is often accompanied by the claim that the state exists to enforce property ownership. Clearly one must preclude the other. If property ownership does not exist, there is no motive for creation of the state.

If we go back to basics we find that academics have already covered this territory. Improvement of unutilized land is often cited as the origin of ownership. While many will make arguments about the virtues of collectivism, that is beyond the scope of the specific origins of land ownership. These are generally arguments premised on, "The ends justify the means".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

Property is only private if the government chooses to Defend your ownership and use or lack there of through force. There are many cases where people thought they owned land only for someone more powerful or influential to take it away

I too dislike vandalism but "private property is private property" hides the many nuances on how much private property is a limited right.