Judgmental, but not controlling
For all my faults, I am not a controlling person.
I notice that things others do, things which don't bother me in the slightest, drive some people nearly insane. I look and try to figure out what the exact problem is, but all I see is "they are doing something I don't like!!"
As long as a person isn't archating, I'm going to be pretty much OK with whatever they do. (If they are archating, then it's my business because violating anyone violates everyone.) Sure, I might recognize that what they are doing isn't something I would do, and I might even consider it disgusting or immoral, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.
But in most cases I see, it's nothing even that serious.
Whether it's a neighbor who hasn't mowed in ages (I can be guilty of that myself), or who has a lot of (what I see as) junk in his yard, or a house with "too many cars", or "possibly illegal" Mexicans living a couple houses down. Whatever.
I really see no reason to start trying to tell them how to live.
It strikes me as strange when others think any of those things are their business, and I see it as wrong when they sic the State on them in order to have their opinions forced on others.
I'm firmly against the concept of property, but it seems many anarchists here are not. To play the devils advocate...wouldn't doing things like that hypothetically decrease the complainer's property value, thereby negatively affecting them?
Some thoughts, questions, and more thoughts.
If you own something it means you get to say what you do with it.
If someone else can force you to do, or not do something with what you own, it means they own it and you have gotten the privilege to use (what they own) it as long as they (the owners) give you the privilege. But they can take it from you if you don't do as they say or pay what they want.
For instance the government gives you the privilege to live on the land you bought, as long as you pay them and do anything they want you to do, or not do on your land. This indirectly implies that it's not your land. (that is as long as you believe that you must do what they tell you, you must do)
Another example; If you can't decide what you put into your body and someone else ( a neighbour, government/the majority, or something written by some mortals in the past) can tell you what you can do, or not do with your body, that someone else owns you. (that is as long as you believe they do)
This goes for your body, your time your energy, your money, the house and the land you bought and own,etc.
Now your hypothesis
How can you prove that the property value has gone down?
Are not you and you alone responsible to do your own research where you are going to live, and make choices, while you live there, to stay or go, when things go "bad" according to you?
You can go and talk to them.
But can you force them to do something you want?
Or force them to do what you want via government violence?
I don't think that I may do that but that's my opinion.
If I would think that the neighbours property is not his own, for whatever reason, I would not have a problem with forcing him to do the things I want, because I would see his property as also being mine and anyone else's property. And I would not only think his property is owned by the collective, but my neighbour himself as well.
The collective is the master the individual the slave.
I can kinda agree with the principals you've laid out here regarding ownership. Like I said, I'm not really a fan of property, but I can see where you're coming from in general.
Regarding my hypothetical situation...I think therein lies a problem with ownership in general. There will occur situations where one person's ownership affects another person's ownership. Be it through decreasing property values (which can be tracked and proven)...or let's say someone changes the environment of their land, and it ends up affecting the environment on another person's land (damming a river, cutting down a forest). Yes, these people could talk to each other, but what if simple talking does not resolve things? What if the damage is already done? The way I see it, ownership breeds conflict...as soon as you believe you own something, your propensity to protect it, by force if necessary, increases.