Is this a victimless crime?

[John Edward Mercier]

Like usual, I feel as if terms are being redefined for your arguements.

Restitution would need to occur... but an aggression (crime)? I don't think so.

Restitution doesn't apply if nobody has been harmed. Without a harmed person, there is no crime. Property damage is aggression and is harmful. In this article, it seems as if NEITHER injury to persons or property has happened.

Not without the consent of all the other owners (that is what collectively owned property means) or their delegated authority.

There's no such thing as "collectively owned property". If you own it, you may do anything you want with it provided you don't harm other human beings. Since I'd be prevented (by force!) from detonating a bomb there in your scenario, I'm not the owner. "Collective property" is a fallacy. Collectively owned is what the govenrment people say when they want to rationalize stealing your money to pay for their monopoly business directives.

I wasn't speaking of the article... but generalizing.
In other words, if harm/damage had occured... but without intent... I wouldn't consider it an aggression, or criminal.
Let's say you swerved around the red paint can and side swiped my car... I would expect restitution, but would object to it being considered criminal as you had no intent to side swipe me... just a circumstance of the situation.

[BillKauffman]

Then you have the same right to use it that I do, that is - none without the owner's consent. If you and I have the same right to use it, which is true? 1.) I also own the car. 2.) You do not own the car?

If I was not a joint owner of the car, I could ask to use it which would or would not be granted via consensus (all the owners have to agree).

If I was a joint owner of the car, I could only use it with the positive consent of the other joint owners or their delegated authority.