I hope a bunch of stoned teenagers show up in the author's office to explore the pleasures of trespassing.
(Owned by evil corporations! Private not personal property! Fair game!)
(Owned by evil corporations! Private not personal property! Fair game!)
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.
So it's ok to break into your house as long as you are very rich?
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.
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'?
"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.
[1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/804992239/current-affai...
[2] https://www.theringer.com/2017/3/23/16044958/new-left-media-...
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 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.
"... private (corporate-owned and fair game) property. Presumably his office is in the latter category."