Ok but private property is private property. This is just trying to normalize vandalism and criminality. “I don’t like it so I’ll do whatever I want and violate others.”
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.
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.
private property should be whatever the owner decides it is
Sounds fun right :)
>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".