dn't ndrstnd why y dslk th d f prprty rghts, r fnd t trvlzng. Prprty rghts r brdnng, sttng tht th thngs wn r n xtnsn f my slf, jst s th thngs y wn r n xtnsn f y.

t rdcs cnflcts bt thngs f mr mtrl ntr t cnflcts btwn ndvdls. chr crtnly hs n rghts. MY chr ds hv rghts, bcs hv rghts. hv rght t my wn svrgnty, rght t ct t mprv my sttn, rght t nt b ntrfrd wth r ggrssd pn.

By dsmssng r blttlng prprty rghts, y'r trnng th rgmnt nt crss sqbbl vr mr _stff_. nstd, ths s bt rghts f mn nd th nblty f th sl. Y'r ntrfrng n nthr prsn's ffrts t lv th lf thy wnt t, whn thy rn't rqrng tht y chng. Y wnt thm t chng, t ccmmdt y. Why shld yr wnts tk prcdnc vr thr dsrs? r y spcl?

Znng lws r hrrbl, bt nt prmrly bcs f ths rsn. nstd, thy'r hrrbl bcs thy dstrt th rl stt mrkt, prmptng pr nvstmnts n cnstrctn.

Wht y'r tlkng bt s mr lk nghbrhd ssctn, whr pn mvng nt nghbrhd y gr t rls gvrnng hw y cn s yr yrd/lt. f y ltr fl t fllw ths rls, thn y'r n brch f cntrct, n ctnbl ffns. Yr nghbrs cn s y.

Bt f d smthng wth my lt tht y smply dn't lk, bt tht ws ndr n lgl blgtn t rfrn frm, thn y'r smply SL. f y fl tht my dng tht wll cs yr prprty vl t dcln, y mght cnsdr mvng yr nvstmnt n yr hs thr t dffrnt hs, r t sm thr frm f lng trm svngs. Y cn lwys mv.

f smthng n my prprty s csng hrm/dmg t ppl/bjcts n yr prprty, thn 'm clrly nfrngng n _yr_ prprty nd th sm prncpls whch prtct my hs frm yr ntrsn wld prtct y frm my ntrsn. f t wrks fr m, t wrks fr y, t; f t dsn't wrk fr m, hw cn y cmpln t dsn't fr y?

f ppl cnnt gr mng thmslvs, f thy fl t cm t rsnbl/rtnl rrngmnt, thn lgl pprch s prfrrd, s nythng ls s crcv, llgl, nd mmrl.

Mindysan,

No, the public doesn't own public property. Instead, this is government-owned land, paid for through taxation of the public. You don't own it, in the same sense that you cannot call up the IRS and ask to have back some/all of the money you've been taxed.

Permanent or impermanent, the acts won't fix themselves. Someone will have to pick up the mess. Is it moral to create additional work for that person without any intention to compensate them for that additional work? Is it moral to promote that type of thinking?

If you want to do art, whether motivated by self-expression or a simple desire to create aesthetic value, buy a canvas, buy rock/wood/metal to shape, hire or get volunteers to act/perform as you wish. Don't just run in and start messing with stuff that doesn't belong to you.

@Dragonfrog

I'm afraid we are going to have irresolvable differences. Ah well.

No, I simply flat disagree. Public good cannot ever supersede property rights, and infringing on someone's property is always morally vicious, never just.

Imagine an extreme case, where someone's property is arranged in such a way as to cause harm to the property owner. Say he has sharp, rusty, metal implements all over the place, making his property very dangerous for him, but not at all affecting anyone outside of his property.

You could act as a humanitarian and intrude on his property to reduce the potential harm to the owner, or you could appeal to some authority to enact zoning laws and regulations on what could be done on his property to reduce the harm to the owner. In either case, you are making a moral judgement in choosing the lesser to two vicious acts (intruding on his property vs. allowing preventable harm to occur). In either case, you've done wrong. Perhaps you've done _less_ wrong than in the case you didn't choose, but the existence of even worse results from not intruding does not ever justify the intrusion itself.

It never makes it good, it just makes it less bad. It's a mere difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

Vandalism just isn't cool.

Acting to modify or change something you don't own to make it 'better' for your definition of better, is just as horrible an idea as the government forcefully acting to modify or change what you're allowed to think and how you're allowed to act to make you 'better' for their definition of better.

Do all the art you want, brighten the world with it, but do it on your own property, without infringing on another's property rights.

Stealing, using against restriction, or changing/modifying property that you don't own just isn't cool.

This isn't about community or whether gardening is admirable in general, it's simply a case of property infringement.

Someone explain to me what the government or any sort of government based 'war on drugs' has to do with this? It sounds to me like this was a private hospital that created its own criteria for performing transplants, influenced by a private insurance company that set the conditions for what it will pay for.

That the government fosters a negative attitude towards drug use is one (stupid) thing, but I'll totally support a privately run corporation or business' right to manage their own property and choose when or to whom to distribute their services. Just as I would support the right of you and I choosing a different hospital or insurer based on whatever criteria each of us feels is important.

The way I see it, a government mandate that hospitals be _required_ to act in cases similar to this would be just as immoral as a government mandated prohibition on drugs and drug use. Leave the government out of it, let your dollars do the talking.