
The Innocent Pleasure of Trespassing - pepys
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/11/the-innocent-pleasure-of-trespassing
======
crispyambulance
In the 80's and 90's, trespassing was a kind of hipster sport in Pittsburgh.
There were numerous abandoned steel mills and factories-- these were huge
facilities that had stopped operating years ago and were left to the elements.
Since many of us lived near these structures, it was irresistible to explore
them and see what's inside. Photographically, they're amazing subjects.
They're also a dream-canvas for graffiti artists. It was also cool to just be
there in the middle of the night with your friends, in a place that was so
alien from everyplace else in the city.

That said, property management doesn't see it that way. For them, it's a
liability. These places are dangerous, there are often no lights and steep
drops without guard rails. Sometimes the floor is just missing in places.
Sharp objects everywhere and no easy way to get help if there's an accident.
And if something did happen, who is to blame if a hipster falls down a chute
50 feet onto concrete? Not easy to say (regardless of what you may think).
Security guards patrolled the area and would investigate any flashlights or
people sightings. Worst case scenario you would get a citation, though our
crew never got caught (in steel mills).

In less dangerous buildings, things were more loose. If you had a camera and
were there to take cool shots, security was apt to just kick you out. A camera
was like a kind of "passport" for trespassers. Graffiti artists got a much
harder response.

~~~
naringas
> who is to blame if a hipster falls down a chute 50 feet onto concrete?

Why wouldn't it be the hipster's fault?

~~~
oskapt
Not in the US. The property owner is liable for injury in the property even if
the person was trespassing or committing a crime. People have legally shot
intruders in their home and then been successfully sued in civil court for the
injuries to the intruder. I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage
a bunch of nerves while I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal
Brooklyn loft. I got $50k for it. I carried $1M liability insurance on my
Brooklyn townhouse because some visitor could slip and fall and sue me for all
sorts of hardship. The system is broken.

On the flip side I now live in a country where the law guarantees public
access to the river running alongside of my property. The locals don’t
actually know how the law works, only that they are supposed to have river
access. So they jump fences, walk through my property, steal things on their
way by, cut down my trees to make smokey fires for their bbq, piss and shit
all over, leave empty beer cans and bottles and trash on the riverbank or in
the river, and then swear that it’s their right to do so. So when they enter
my property, they get a shotgun in their face and they are encouraged to find
one of the myriad of other points of entry to the river. The law says they can
access the river, but not that they can trespass to do it. Enter from the
abandoned field on the other side. It’s the same river.

The public don’t respect public places. They treat them as private places they
can destroy and leave. The article talks about the place where homeless people
would shelter from the wind but fails to mention that they also piss there
until the spot reeks from 3 meters away. Is that their right too?

~~~
circlefavshape
Wait

> I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while
> I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft. I got
> $50k for it.

You were doing something illegal, got injured, and sued? And you say "the
system is broken"? The system is broken because of behaviour like yours

~~~
kempbellt
Much of Brooklyn's "residential" offerings aren't legally residential. They're
old commercial buildings that landlords have cheaply repurposed to get a piece
of the rising demand in housing.

I lived in Bushwick for a year and a half, never met my landlord, and I'm sure
the building was breaking at least a dozen laws, but it was relatively
affordable so no one really asked questions.

------
jelliclesfarm
I am a tad incensed. My farm has been broken into..trespassed and squatted
upon(literally and figuratively) ..my creek polluted and decades old trees
topped off by not so innocent trespassers.

And I was told by my insurance that it was my responsibility to install gates
and fences as protection against liability. It costs thousands. How do you
fence off creek banks and abutting wilderness for the bird life and wildlife?
The law enforcement’s hands are tied as they declare themselves homeless and
they have advocates and activists. I pay taxes and I have no rights. Except to
ask them to leave and they keep coming back after dismantling their tents. And
when they leave, they destroy my farm a little more out of spite..tractor and
trailer stolen,Metal arches pulled away and placed as tents just outside my
property line to throw it at my face because I can’t complain about property
that isn’t mine and power lines running zig zag in my orchard stealing my
electricity...greenhouse panels pulled out to build a bridge to cross the
creek...trees with nesting birds topped off for campfires. Fences that I put
up repeatedly run over by visitors of said homeless camp dwellers.

I could go on..but this is what I surmised: when one thinks it’s ok to break
one rule(trespassing), it becomes easier to break others. I consider
unrepentant trespassing as character flaw and am wary of those who exhibit it.

~~~
voldacar
That's heartbreaking - have you thought about setting up cameras so you have
unambiguous evidence in case you ever have to bring legal action? Are they
ever armed? Would it be worth while patrolling the perimeter of your land with
a rifle every now and then or would they just leave and come back later?

~~~
jelliclesfarm
They stole cameras, lighting, greenhouse shelving, packing house tables. I
employ a lot of girls part time and I am a sole operator of a female run
business. They just refused to come back and work. And I don’t blame them.

I know they are dealing drugs. Sonoma county has legal pot ..so it’s not pot.
Why would a homeless camping site have BMWs and Hummers and SUVs and other
cars come by..they even had a system..bicycles near where they parked to get
to the creek area hidden by trees. So people don’t have to walk to get to the
little apartment like units they built.

I was being punished for calling on the cops because they’d defecate,
fornicate and leave poop and condoms and tampons and bottles filled with
pee..there is now a sign that says ‘restroom’ on a tree by the creek. And law
enforcement won’t do anything. This is California. I don’t think I can patrol
with a firearm.

~~~
carapace
Are the local law enforcement outgunned?

I was living near Boonville and there was an illegal grow op run by Mexican
gangsters. There was a car that had "broken down" by the side of the road and
the lookouts openly hung out there "fixing" it. _For months._ I was told that,
although the Sheriff knew all about it, he wouldn't do anything because the
gang was just too well-armed, violent, and well-connected to bother.

Otherwise, if it's not some weird shit like that, I can't understand how/why
the law wouldn't be more on your side.

\- - - -

If your particular tormentors are gang-connected I would recommend you GTFO
ASAP.

\- - - -

Are you willing to injure or even kill another human being, considering that
these bastards are not threatening your life, just trashing your material
possessions? (Which is still really really bad!)

Remember that you don't have to actually shoot the people. A bullet whizzing
overhead is known to have a cleansing and tonic effect on muddled thinking.

It might be sufficient to simply post some of your old targets from the
shooting range up around the place. Ones with bullet holes in them. It's a
subtle way to let your unruly neighbors know that you are reaching the limits
of your patience.

\- - - -

edit: Reading some of your additional comments, it seems like guns are totally
not going to help your situation at all. Like, not even a little bit.

I don't know what to tell you. It sounds like you're at the front lines of the
apocalypse. My heart goes out to you.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I license land from the water Dept now..it’s urban edge farming. It comes with
its own set of challenges including lack of benefits of scale.

This is actually giving me an opportunity to think and figure out how create
farm systems in urban settings. Rural areas are degraded and without support
..in some ways..like with law enforcement, basic infrastructure, connectivity,
environmental protection etc.

I think the future is melding self sufficient urban centers with modernized
rural food hubs. It’s the only way. On one hand, we have housing crisis and on
the other hand, rural areas that are like the Wild West.

I like to imagine them as new cities of the future and just write down what
comes to mind. I suspect much will change in our lifetimes..who knows?...but
imagining how it can be better saves my sanity and keeps me from losing my
temper in bad ways.

Where I farm..because it’s land associated with federal funds has security and
a zillion resources that protect it. It’s also in an urban area. It can be
improved. We can urbanize around rural hubs. We can introduce food producing
hubs in urban settings.. Altho it might be smaller in scale...it will reduce
supply chain and value chain when part of food production is local.

I understand farmers better now...but I had to walk in their shoes(But had to
lose my shirt, as it were..)

~~~
carapace
This is so fascinating to me. Have you seen Christopher Alexander's "Pattern
Language"? (Especially the "interlocking fingers of city and country"
pattern?)

Or the old "Integral Urban Home" book?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_Home](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_Home)

When I lived in Boonville we had an organic garden that generated a surplus,
but there didn't seem to be a practical way to sell it to anyone, even with
the Internet.

Also, are you into Permaculture or other forms of regenerative agriculture?

I really respect you for getting out there and doing it.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I will look it up. Thank you.

I am taking a break now and only growing/selling from my perennial plantings
and fruit from the orchard. The apiary/honey sales is also very healthy. I can
see how permaculture is likely more suitable for me. The idea of solo small
acreage farming really appeals to me. Because. Labour. People.

I am considering buying a nut orchard or citrus acreage and leave it to farm
management. This way I am still a ‘farmer’ while kind of outsourcing the
labour. It will give me some breathing space to figure out what to do next.

The future is automation. Far future. I haven’t been able to find any American
Agtech for small acreage farmers like me. We don’t develop any appropriate
tech for small farms(sub 100 acres.

I hosted a demo for a visiting Ag robotics company. It was embarrassing. Rural
america ..at least here in CA..is appalling in its lack of infrastructure.
Connectivity, power..even the rtk base station clusters weren’t always
available. One of the fuses fizzled and there was literally no one who had a
80A fuse. There was no radio frequency channel that was free for Ag use. All
this was fascinating to me. I hand weed and have a compact tractor. What do I
know? At that moment, robots in the field seemed like it was impossible in
America.

How are we going to get robots in our fields when there are two different
Americas? And this is in a state with 45 billion dollars in Ag income. so much
environmental degradation, poor infrastructure and California really isn’t
throwing money where it needs to stick.

Farmers are a powerful lobby. The big ones. There is no money in farming for
others. They say farmers make money once twice. That ‘one good year’ and when
they retire and sell the farm land. Example: a small rancher I know told me
that he makes more money from mitigation service fees with the govt than what
he makes from his 400 strong herd in his 800 acre ranch. Why? Because there is
a tiny little salamander that is endangered in California. It has protected
status..which is great! the land cannot be used for anything except maybe
grazing or as horse property if the tiger salamander decides to make your
property it’s home. But the govt also runs a mitigation program where they pay
land owners to pick these salamanders and move it to their land. The now
cleared property where the salamander used to live is ready to be built upon
..homes and condos.

Relevant Link: [https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5759685-181/feds-
say-385-...](https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5759685-181/feds-
say-385-million-needed)

The state makes many times over in property taxes when these lots are used for
real estate. And the last I heard, developers pass it on to the new buyers at
something like $5.00/sq.ft. The best way to avail $$ is to make a random
critter a candidate for endangered status. I would like to think that I am a
conservationist. I don’t see the logic in taking an endangered creature and
transplanting it in an environment that it’s not it’s native habitat. What is
wrong with this picture? Is the problem created so that the solution is
offered? And it just so happens that the solution brings in millions in jobs,
homes, taxes and recurring property taxes. What are they doing? I don’t
understand. Colour me jaded.

I guess my point is that there is money only if land is used to build homes.
The large farms that are corporations that grow pistachios or almonds or
alfafa that bring in forex as they are exports are protected..commodity crops
listed on stock market are valuable. Farming corporations with powerful
bargaining lobbies for water allocation and tax breaks and monies from state
budget get preference. The California residents rationed water so almonds
could be exported. We paid more for water and even more for watershed
protection and taxes and studies for subsidence where ground water and
aquifers were emptied by farmers who had grandfathered rights. We sent alfafa
to China during the worst years of California drought. It makes one’s jaw
drop.

Small farms growing local food don’t get subsidies..don’t get support or have
someone lobbying for them...’hobby farmers’ and small acreage farmers growing
in marginal land or inherited land with barely there infrastructure and
service will never make money.

Local food is important. Food security should be a big deal. Farming should
include food for communities and not just exports and trade. Right now, it’s
cheaper to export food from Mexico or South America. How much longer?

Before we can automate farming or become sustainable or be able to convert
food production..an essential activity..into a profit making venture, there
ought to be infrastructure improvements and we need the state to treat
productive local small businesses better than they treat criminals who get
better services than small/family/market farmers. Tax payers shouldn’t be
burdened with raising taxes without any return on their annual tithing.
Example: I paid $300/acre for the adobe fire in Napa/Sonoma Area in my
property tax return. I am happy to do that. But PG&E hasn’t taken any
responsibility and we had fires again this year. What does it all mean? What
is the state’s role in fixing the foundational rot in CA? I don’t know. No one
does.

We have the best soils in the country. The world even..our weather in CA is
truly golden. 8 months..not a drop of rain. It’s a dream to farm in CA.
Silicon Valley is in our backyard. There is literally nothing we can’t grow in
California. What a beautiful place and I have lived all over the USA.(and two
other continents) It should be a dream...but it’s a nightmare.

I love California so much. I have toyed with the idea of hemp farming or
buying something for far less money in some place like Nevada..but there is an
irrational attachment to California soil. This is where I learnt to farm. I
can not possibly quit. I am going to wait it out until the dumbasses that run
this state get their collective acts together. I will never quit farming.
Altho I might feel like giving up..but I am going to do it right with round 2.
I am going to figure a system that checks all the boxes..Agtech,
sustainability, environmental and resource conservation and automation
because..no automation, no profits. I am certain about that. I have crunched
the numbers every way and even upside down..for farms at all sizes..automation
is the only way farming can be profitable again. But we can’t do anything
about it unless we get the infrastructure right and that’s not a private
sector endeavor.

I also feel agtech companies that bring in farm robotics or agtech in the
field should avoid large corporate farms and focus on automation small acreage
farms first. Why? Because each crop is billions of dollars worth..even lettuce
is 3 something billion dollar crop in CA. Strawberries are close to that
figure too. They are not going to switch to automation and say bye to all
their minimum wage cheap labour for a test farm equipment. They have to pass
so many hoops and red tape and obstacles before it gets widely adopted. It
will take decades to fully transition and it won’t be painless. An example is
when tomatoes were harvested mechanically rather than by migrant labour. It
gave raise to an entire political uprising. Companies like JD or Case or
Monsanto or Sygenta etc have too much at stake. All tech will be swallowed by
the big players and be left to die in a dark vault until they feel it’s time
to let it out without cannibalising their own product lines.

We can’t afford to wait that long. It’s criminal to not apply technology that
is possible and feasible and can be field ready at once. We need farm bots and
should stop dicking around with drones and sensors. That’s all decades old
tech. We need foundational changes. Small farms are so small compared to big
Ag that application of appropriate future tech is not a danger to the bottom
line of the big Ag suppliers or the balance sheet or tax coffers.

If there is one thing I would like to request the tech community..it would be
that they ought to create appropriate tech for small acreage farms. It’s easy.
It’s possible. It’s low hanging fruit but it’s impact would be tremendous. It
would create a whole new farm system and initiate a paradigm shift wrt how we
grow our food. To the govt, I would say that they treat them as legit
businesses. To the public, I would say that they pay more for good food.
Quality over quantity. To young farmers, check externalities and don’t farm
with romance. It should be taken seriously or small farmers will have no
voice. But starting with infrastructure and not rewarding criminals who damage
such an essential act like farming via turning a blind eye is a good start.
One of the reasons it became difficult for me was because I grow food. Poop
and urine and condoms and tampons that I picked up shouldn’t be in a place
where I grow food. I have to pay for certifications and if I have a GAP audit,
I would fail if there is a tampon under my mulberry tree. The county owes it
to me and my tax paying farm to keep undesirable elements engaged in unlawful
activity after I file a complaint. It’s not my job to provide sanctuary to
trespassers. And that’s the full circle!

Cheers and peace out. I said more than I wanted to...thanks again. I will
check them out.

Eta: typos. Sorry about that.

~~~
carapace
Wow! That was awesome (also frustrating and poignant.) Should be on the front
page of HN, IMO.

I can't write a coherent reply right now, but I wanted to mention some things:

I dream of a world where people can step out of their kitchens and pick their
produce from their own gardens, but I know that, realistically, you're right
about automation. Most people don't want to tend a garden. But I'm an amateur
roboticist and gardener and I'm not confident that automation will be at all
easy. Even with the recent advances in ML, et. al., it's going to be hard to
displace humans (after all, we are adapted to gathering food from plants.) The
easy-to-automate farming might turn out to be microbes (
[https://massivesci.com/articles/iwi-algae-protein-
nannochlor...](https://massivesci.com/articles/iwi-algae-protein-
nannochloropsis-food-essential-amino-acids/) &
[http://boostbiomes.com/](http://boostbiomes.com/)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20687797](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20687797)
), and/or marine farming (
[https://www.greenwave.org/](https://www.greenwave.org/) ).

I'm hoping that it might be possible to make dense "food forests" near to
population centers and people can come and glean for themselves. I had an idea
for a kind of member-supported farm with a restaurant on-premises. Folks drive
out (by appointment) for a fancy meal sourced (mostly) from the farm/garden
around them, membership would include a certain number of meals. There's a lot
of little details (members can purchase surplus produce online and pick it up
after their meals, etc.)

\- - - -

What about some sort of small online distributed Farmer's Market, like Etsy
for Veggies, that allows people to pledge to buy produce before it's
harvested, or even before it's planted? You would have to allow for e.g. bad
weather or bugs/diseases ruining a given crop/area, but it would give small
rural farms a stable market, maybe?

I know there are a lot of people who are willing to pay more for healthier,
ecologically grown food. Just look at any Whole Foods store, for example. It's
a matter of connecting the kitchens and the farms. "Merely" a logistics
problem, eh?

~~~
jelliclesfarm
It is a supply chain and value chain problem.

------
pjmorris
"There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;

The sign was painted, it said private property;

But on the back side it didn’t say nothing;

That side was made for you and me."

    
    
      - Woody Guthrie, 'This Land is Your Land' (sometimes this verse goes missing)

~~~
klyrs
I literally got in trouble for knowing this verse in elementary school. Dad
came down with a tape cassette to show the principal what was up. :eyeroll:

Funny how Guthrie's communist, anti-borders, anthem got co-opted by
nationalists so far that they don't even understand the meaning... this verse
couldn't make that cut, though.

~~~
lukifer
> Funny how Guthrie's communist, anti-borders, anthem got co-opted by
> nationalists so far that they don't even understand the meaning

There is a rich tradition in classical liberalism on the universality of land,
predating the ideas of communism/Marxism. For instance, see Thomas Paine's
advocacy for a tax on ground rent [0]; so-called "absentee landlords" were
associated with royal aristocracies and enclosure [1].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure)

~~~
nostrademons
Also Georgism and the modern geolibertarian movement:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism)

------
kstenerud
I've done this all throughout my life. From exploring abandoned buildings &
sites to going into "restricted against lowlifes" areas, it's amazing the cool
stuff you can see!

I've camped in ghost towns in Oregon. I've visited uncleared temples in
Cambodia, covered in underbrush deep in the jungle. I've been in abandoned
factories & hospitals, crashed a few gala affairs, visited beautiful
beaches... you name it!

And now, living in the former DDR (East Germany), there are so many abandoned
places that you can visit a new one every weekend :)

~~~
mihaifm
How do you spot these places or find out about them, in general?

~~~
et-al
Easy access to satellite imagery helps, along with always keeping an open eye
and ear out for these things.

That being said, Germany has a lots of abandoned factories and warehouses to
explore once one gets out of the major cities. You're looking for places with
large _former_ industrial activity. That's why Detroit had so many photos
coming out of it in the early 2010s. I'm sure Poland is also rife with
buildings to explore.

------
pontifier
I've lamented the lack of true public property for a long time. I'm thinking
about buying abandoned property in various places, at very low cost, and
opening them up to public use.

It would be done through a non-profit land holding company with the stated
mission of opening land and abandoned structures to public use. Enter at your
own risk signs, and a brief description that this property is now open for any
legal use would be the only changes. (Barring removal of true death traps)

~~~
carapace
What about National Forests? Would you consider that true public property?

> National Forest is a classification of protected and managed federal lands
> in the United States. National Forests are largely forest and woodland areas
> owned collectively by the American people through the federal government,
> and managed by the United States Forest Service, a division of the United
> States Department of Agriculture.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest)

Also, consider Slab City:

> Slab City, also called The Slabs, is a largely snowbird community in the
> Sonoran Desert located in Imperial County, California, 100 miles (161 km)
> northeast of San Diego and 169 miles (272 km) southeast of Los Angeles
> within the California Badlands, and used by recreational vehicle owners and
> squatters from across North America.

> The site is both decommissioned and uncontrolled, and there is no charge for
> parking. The site has no official electricity, running water, sewers,
> toilets or trash pickup service.[3] Many residents use generators or solar
> panels to generate electricity. The closest body of civilization with proper
> law enforcement is approximately four miles southwest of Slab City in Niland
> where the residents often go to do basic shopping. As a result, the site is
> described by its inhabitants and news outlets like Vice News as a miniature
> de facto enclave of anarchy.

It might be considered a kind of Temporary Autonomous Zone
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone)

~~~
pontifier
I don't consider national forests true public property because of entry fees,
scheduling camp grounds, restrictions on activity, and length of time you can
be there. Also, remoteness is an issue.

I really like the idea of slab city, and have talked to some people who have
been there. I haven't been myself. I also love the idea of the Kowloon walled
city and the tower of David as models for a public space without top down
control.

~~~
carapace
I thought there were places where you could just drive or hike in and camp for
up to three nights? FWIW, w/o restrictions you would have folks living there
permanently. (I know because I totally would.)

I guess the frontier really is closed, eh?

\- - - -

I saw a BBC documentary on Kowloon and it scared the shit out of me, FWIW.

\- - - -

Anyhow, Christopher Alexander's "Living Neighborhoods" made me realize that
what I really want is a lively healthy living neighborhood.
[https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-
exp.htm](https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm)

See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes)

------
mwill
This is incredible curious, an upvoted post where (at the time of my comment)
every top level comment is downvoted, possibly the most polarizing post I've
ever seen on HN

~~~
Dirlewanger
Shouldn't be a surprise, as private property (and keeping the government/all
other parties out of it) is one of the fundamental tenets of the U.S.
Constitution. And so a lot of people come with that mindset.

It's a double-edged sword, and while I agree with a lot of the points in the
article (it's one of the primary reasons why Europe is unbelievably pleasant
to visit), the US will _never_ implement anything remotely close to free-to-
roam (or whatever it's called in the UK, as an analog) policies. Too many
private interests against it.

~~~
francisofascii
Private property is fundamental, but preventing people from traversing across
private private property seemed to have morphed from being no big deal into a
much bigger offense over the last century. Or at least that is my
understanding.

~~~
charliesharding
> When you trespass, you are striking a blow against hierarchy and capitalism
> and uptight motherfuckers everywhere.

I think the controversy comes from the authors overall tone. Quotes like this
make them sound like an edgy teenager

------
robben1234
Other than the legal side that is only relevant to EU and NA countries,
there's a practical side of "trespassing".

When you enter an abandoned building you take a huge risk. It's called
abandoned for a reason - it's not maintained. Steps you step on may collapse.
Plastering may fall on your head. Some drug addict may leave a used syringe on
the floor for you to step on.

Same goes for undeveloped areas outside of cities no one cares about (that are
owned by some private entity and are not public). You may stumble upon on a
wild animal, spider, snake. Find a poisonous fruit or berry. Ground may be
unstable, some river may overflow.

I've done a lot of wondering around of different areas in different countries
but every time I enter an abandoned structure I hope today is not the day it
collapses.

~~~
riffraff
I see the parent post downvoted, but I don't see why.

Indeed, that was my first thought when I saw the title, and since it's a very
long read, I just ctrl+f "danger", which doesn't come up once.

When I was a kid, I went into abandoned houses, churches, private land, and on
a few occasions I crawled into old etruscan tombs looking for interesting bits
(bits of broken vases, coins and such).

It was very fun, and also very stupid, and I count myself lucky that nothing
ever happened to me.

One should be mindful when deciding to break into unmaintained areas, rather
than charge in with a the hope of getting a nice instagram picture yelling
"YOLO!".

~~~
jandrese
I'm actually curious how many people are injured during "urbex" type
activities? It might be a little harder to figure this out than you'd expect
because the statistics would also likely count the homeless person that breaks
into a warehouse and ODs.

While the people are definitely in a more dangerous environment than usual,
they are also likely to be on guard for hazards so I'm guessing the number of
people actually hurt/killed doing these activities is very small.

~~~
slavik81
There was quite a sad case here recently. A midnight bobsled run. They'd done
it before. It was great fun and relatively safe.

What they didn't know was that this time the track had been set up for luge.
The luge entrance blocked the bobsled track with a big metal gate, and they
slammed into it at high speed.

I occasionally went places I shouldn't have when I was a kid, but there's
definitely risks to doing so. It's pretty hard to know what you're getting
yourself into.

[https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/trespassing-tobogganing-
te...](https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/trespassing-tobogganing-teens-perish-
on-canada-olympic-park-s-bobsled-track-1.2767457)

------
carapace
There's so much wrong with this article that I'm lit. twitching, but I don't
have time to write up a big thing on it.

Let me just say, speaking as someone who was homeless for about four and a
half years and who did a little bit of non-destructive trespassing out of
necessity, that, generally speaking, trespassing is dangerous and
disrespectful. You should avoid it if possible. It's not "a radical expression
of freedom, hope, and humanity." You are _not_ "striking a blow against
hierarchy and capitalism and uptight motherfuckers everywhere." You're risking
your life, jail time, or fines, for a cheap thrill.

Trespassing only seems like fun if you're really really jaded, naive, or
literally cannot afford to do _anything_ better. You don't go to the amusement
park and stand in line to throw rocks through the windows of an abandoned
warehouse, do you?

If you want to be radical, _feed someone._

------
baud147258
The only time I trespassed was in Croatia, close to the Serbian border. We had
taken the wrong road and ended up on a dead-end. A Serbian living there
explained that the road ended up at a summer house of Tito, which was also
intended to be used in case of Nuclear war, as it's built above a spring. We
went to visit the building, which had been thoroughly trashed since the break-
up of Yugoslavia. I also wonder why it hasn't been converted in a hotel, since
it's close to one of the natural park of Croatia.

------
leggomylibro
Yes, we all like breaking into places in ways that 'nobody cares about', and
we all like beholding beautiful scenes which a majority of people don't think
to look for.

But there's a reason why most places discourage this sort of freewheeling
exploration; when you visit a place and disrespect its boundaries, you often
end up damaging it for the people who come after you. Even footsteps will
eventually wear away stones, knock things loose, and disturb delicate
habitats/ecosystems such as fungi. As the old saying goes, "plants grow by
inches, but they die by feet."

And if you play confidence games like the author, you're making it more likely
for other people seeking the same location to get caught and punished.

Yes, the sunbeams that cut through the jagged broken windows of an abandoned
train station are gorgeous, and the view from the top of a palatial tower is
hard to beat. But it's also sort of like driving through a wetland or ignoring
'please stay on trail' signs in the wild; if we derive pleasure from these
places and consider them special, showing them off and visiting them regularly
without regard for conservation seems like a poor way to honor them.

Honestly, I have trouble seeing the views espoused in this article as anything
other than selfish. Even publicly-owned lands have limits on their use,
because we all share these spaces. They don't belong to _you_ , they belong to
_all of us_ , and that includes future generations who will have the same
yearnings that we do. I'd be interested to hear other takes, but as an
occasional trespasser, this manifesto feels disrespectful and I feel like it
might paint the community of urban (and natural) explorers in a bad light.

~~~
larnmar
Indeed. Even the relatively harmless example of going up to a hotel floor to
look at the view out of (I assume) the lift lobby is something that only works
if you’re the only one doing it.

If a bunch of people start doing it then all of a sudden guests start noticing
crowds of people outside their rooms, the hotel is obliged to post security
guards to stop it happening, and bingo, suddenly life is slightly worse for
everyone.

If you find yourself saying “it’s okay that I break the rules” with a full
awareness that if everyone broke the same rules it would be terrible, then you
are exactly the kind of selfish asshole that is the usual answer to the
question of “why we can’t have nice things”.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _something that only works if you’re the only one doing it._

Tangential, but I wonder if there's a name for this, and how much it has been
studied. While I appreciate the wisdom behind Kant's categorical imperative,
there are many activities in the world that lose all meaning and authenticity
if you're not the only one, or one of the few, engaging in them. The current
zeitgeist seems hell-bent on normalizing and averaging everything out, but
assuming something is bad just because not everyone can do it seems to me like
a recipe for a duller society.

Related:

> _If a bunch of people start doing it then all of a sudden guests start
> noticing crowds of people outside their rooms, the hotel is obliged to post
> security guards to stop it happening, and bingo, suddenly life is slightly
> worse for everyone._

I think the problem here is the hotel choosing an obnoxious way of stopping it
from happening. I think it should _not_ be generalized into "if too many
people do something, doing it will become impossible, which is bad", because
arguably _nobody_ doing it is even worse. It's like with non-renewable
resources - yes, exploiting them now makes them inaccessible in the future,
but not exploiting them ever is as if they didn't exist; the only utility
there is is in the exploitation.

~~~
nullc
> > something that only works if you’re the only one doing it.

> Tangential, but I wonder if there's a name for this, and how much it has
> been studied.

These non-universalizable actions.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability)

There have been hundreds if not thousands of philosophy papers written on the
subject.

In particular, I think the cases you're referring to are a "contradiction in
the will"\-- where it's not logically impossible that everyone would do the
thing, but it would produce a result that no one would want.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Thanks, didn't know these terms before! I'll read up.

------
sandoooo
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!)

~~~
pietroglyph
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.

~~~
terryf
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?

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

~~~
terryf
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.

------
archi42
It's important to note that the author seems to be an anticapitalist; hence
trespassing becomes a non-violent form of protest against the system he
despises.

Which is ironic, because he seems to be on the richer end of it (eg a white
westerner who can afford intercontinental travel, on a job with a healthy
work/life balance).

~~~
BLKNSLVR
"Which is ironic, because he seems to be on the richer end of it (eg a white
westerner who can afford intercontinental travel, on a job with a healthy
work/life balance)"

Which means they're exactly the sort of person who SHOULD be protesting the
system. It's easy to criticize when you're not on the inside.

I suggested an article to a colleague of mine. He was recently complaining
about stale wage growth, and the article I suggested was showing reasons for
of wage growth stagnation. He simply dismissed it by saying "yeah, but the
person who wrote it is probably on $200k". End of story, point invalidated by
privilege...

WTF is that attitude? The overwhelming majority of voices you can hear are
those in a position of privilege, even in the age of the Internet. A long-form
article like this one isn't going to come out of rando ne'er-do-well xchan
channel.

Speak out from a non-privileged position: Pfft, work harder slacker

Speak out from a position of privilege: Pfft, your words mean nothing from
that ivory tower.

Zero sum. That is not the way forward.

~~~
oceanplexian
I guess I'm old fashioned in that I care about the content and character of
what people have to say and not where it is coming from. It could come from a
billionaire, a gay man, a woman, a poor person, whoever. In fact the less I
know about your background the better, so that it might not bias or color my
opinion (Seems to be the exact opposite these days.)

Growing up I thought the Internet would be a great leveler. Anyone with a
computer could anonymously make a point about something. But something changed
around 2005ish; websites started requiring real names, social networks became
about cementing existing social connections instead of creating new ones (For
example compare the days of LiveJournal to Facebook) Most online entertainment
is simply re-creating television. A few "influencers" and a lot of passive
consumers. Which is sad and disappointing because everyone has the potential
to create something that others would be interested in, even if the audience
is small and you might never be famous doing it.

~~~
aidenn0
People care about the person it comes from because of so many calculating
posts. You'll see a single entity argue against regulation that hurts them
because "regulation is bad" and then later argue for regulation that helps
them because "we need to set boundaries on what people can do." If you can get
X% of the population to support repealing any regulation and a different X% of
the population to support passing any regulation, and Y% of the population
doesn't care about regulations that don't directly affect them, then the
unprincipled will get exactly the set of regulations they want, so long as X+Y
> 50.

------
djrobstep
It's truly amazing to me that people accept landlording as legitimate. Nobody
made land, so why should some people be allowed to make money out of it at the
expense of others?

~~~
jdnenej
By that logic you have to reject all property ownership entirely and modern
society becomes totally unable to function since no one could ever build a
building.

I think the vast majority of us find the ability to own land to be more useful
than everyone living in grass tents that someone else could knock over because
they want to sleep there.

~~~
pietroglyph
I think the GP is drawing a distinction between private and personal property.
If you outlaw private property (e.g. things owned in absentee by entities,
usually to seek rent, like landlording) then you are not outlawing people
owning the places in which they work or sleep.

It is only when you outlaw personal property (e.g. your clothes, your home)
that you encounter the problematic scenario that you suggest.

When Marx says he wants to abolish private property (i.e. the means of
production), he does not mean to abolish personal property. I think this
nuance is often ignored or unknown, which is unfortunate.

~~~
jdnenej
So you are saying that people may only own land if they work or live on the
land? This is not desirable for most businesses where renting property makes
much more sense since it gives them the flexability to expand or downsize. It
is also not desirable for people who are living somewhere temporarily.

~~~
djrobstep
Renting itself is fine. Property ownership is actually a huge, annoying pain
in the ass which, putting aside financial security reasons, and the fact that
renters are often treated like scum, nobody would want to go through.

What is at issue here is landlording for private gain. As I pointed out, these
rents are entirely unearned because nobody made land, and so should flow to
the general public, not private owners.

~~~
Nasrudith
Under that logic wouldn't a farmer farming for private gain have unearned
money? They didn't make the land.

Not that there is never unjust rent-seeking activity but there are real
investment of capital and work involved and merely "dependence on land" isn't
a sufficient arguement.

