CDZ Squatter Rights

[Onyx]

Okay, since Andylusion and company have committed to deflecting to high heavens, I will pose the question for everybody, since they have shown themselves incapable of answering it.

What moral justification is there to claim ownership over unused land? I have yet to hear a single answer, and my patience for intellectually dishonest tactics like deflection and conjecture is weaning.

 

[Onyx]

I get it YOU think no one is entitled to own land

Then YOU (seriously?) would be wrong.

I said right from the gecko that I am for sustained land ownership.

YOU are wrong and until the laws are changed that abolish land ownership you will be wrong and since those laws will never be abolished you will always be wrong

The law is the highest moral authority for mindless tools and sheep.

Like I have said repeatedly in this thread, all of you have failed to give an actual moral justification. No, the government telling you that it is okay to deprive others of a livelihood that you abandon is not a legitimate justification.

 

[Andylusion]

I get it YOU think no one is entitled to own land

Then YOU (seriously?) would be wrong.

I said right from the gecko that I am for sustained land ownership.

YOU are wrong and until the laws are changed that abolish land ownership you will be wrong and since those laws will never be abolished you will always be wrong

The law is the highest moral authority for mindless tools and sheep.

Like I have said repeatedly in this thread, all of you have failed to give an actual moral justification. No, the government telling you that it is okay to deprive others a livelihood which you abandon is not a legitimate justification.

Yes, I understand your position. You are in favor of land ownership, until someone uses the land in a way you disagree with.

Then all of a sudden, with your magical arbitrary conditions, the person who worked, earned, and purchased the land, and simply lose their property to squatters, who then own the land simply because they did nothing at all except existed there.

Now I'm sure you would disagree with that... but no matter what you claim about your position, that is in fact what your position means to the rest of us.

Sorry, but just because we use our property in a way you don't like, doesn't mean diddly jack to anyone.

And any time any country anywhere has determined to operate in any similar fashion to what you are talking about here, the result is destruction.

 

[Andylusion]

Like I have said repeatedly in this thread, all of you have failed to give an actual moral justification. No, the government telling you that it is okay to deprive others a livelihood which you abandon is not a legitimate justification.

It is an argument from a lack of opposition. Our opening argument was axiomatic in nature, and if the original axiom is uncontested, then it stands (logic 101 m8),

Since you have failed to contest it, then we have no need to provide moral justification.

Sound familiar?

 

[Onyx]

Yes, I understand your position. You are in favor of land ownership, until someone uses the land in a way you disagree with.

That would be a misrepresentation. I clearly defined what I believe is morally acceptable, and I based it on what I feel is a fair compromise between being reasonable and being realistic.

Then all of a sudden, with your magical arbitrary conditions

The conditions are not arbitrary.

If you sustain land, then you have an actual case to justify your right to it. "I live on this land, I maintain the house, and I grow the crops just over there."

That is considered a substantive claim. Most cultures did not have property deeds in antiquity, because the idea that you can draft a piece of paper and carve up large swaths of the earth is batshit crazy. They did however, recognize land ownership, and they judged it using the same method I am employing.

the person who worked, earned, and purchased the land, and simply lose their property to squatters, who then own the land simply because they did nothing at all except existed there.

Stop engaging in strawman.

We are talking about squatters being able to claim unused (abandoned) property. Your attempts to shift my goalposts are intellectually dishonest.

Now I'm sure you would disagree with that... but no matter what you claim about your position, that is in fact what your position means to the rest of us.

"The rest of you" (conjectural) have yet to back up your unjustified claims with any substantive arguments.

Despite your failed attempt it subtly conceal it, that is still argumentum ad populum. Is that all you got?

Sorry, but just because we use our property in a way you don't like, doesn't mean diddly jack to anyone.

Actually, in the context of what I am justifying, you would not be using it.

That is my argument. That squatters have a right to claim land that is not being sustained. So really you are not actually using "your" property, but rather just leaving it to rot in this scenario.

And any time any country anywhere has determined to operate in any similar fashion to what you are talking about here, the result is destruction.

What modern nation state has affirmed the principle of sustained land ownership?

Answer: Zero

 

[Onyx]

Since you have failed to contest it, then we have no need to provide moral justification.

Sound familiar?

This makes no sense.

I am trying to explain to you that a premise left uncontested is a premise that stands. You have not contested that you cannot steal that which is not owned. Therefore, unless that axiom is contested, you have the burden of proving that you have a moral justification to claim ownership over land which you do not sustain.

 

[Muhammed]

Even before I was an anarchist, I supported squatter rights.

Human beings have an unequivocal right to live on land that is not being used. Human beings have no right to claim ownership over what they do not personally sustain themselves.

I'm not an anarchist, but in political views I support squatters rights too, just like you. But probably for different reasons. Nobody wants to live right next door to an abandoned house. It's just plain creepy. And different states have different legal codes regarding the matter.

For instance, a friend of mine could not afford the payments on his house after the the housing bubble. The finance company tried to foreclose on the property. I recommended that he just stop paying the mortgage and invest that money. But , apparently, they can't find the deed

He's been living there without paying the mortgage for 14 years now. Under Ohio law, they ca't evict him if they can't find the deed soon, that property is his.

 

[Onyx]

I'm not an anarchist, but in political views I support squatters rights too, just like you. But probably for different reasons. Nobody wants to live right next door to an abandoned house. It's just plain creepy. And different states have different legal codes regarding the matter.

For instance, a friend of mine could not afford the payments on his house after the the housing bubble. The finance company tried to foreclose on the property. I recommended that he just stop paying the mortgage and invest that money. But , apparently, they can't find the deed

He's been living there without paying the mortgage for 14 years now. Under Ohio law, they ca't evict him if they can't find the deed soon, that property is his.

No, we agree for pretty much the same reasons.

It makes no sense that someone can abandon perfectly good property anywhere from several years to several decades, and those that try to claim it for themselves are persecuted.

If you have been to cities like Detroit and Cleveland, you will notice tons of abandoned housing and factories. In Detroit, you can see the ruins of what used to be entire neighborhoods. It makes zero sense that those buildings are allowed to lie dormant, when they could be reclaimed and put back to use in order to revitalize those areas.

 

[Andylusion]

Even before I was an anarchist, I supported squatter rights.

Human beings have an unequivocal right to live on land that is not being used. Human beings have no right to claim ownership over what they do not personally sustain themselves.

I'm not an anarchist, but in political views I support squatters rights too, just like you. But probably for different reasons. Nobody wants to live right next door to an abandoned house. It's just plain creepy. And different states have different legal codes regarding the matter.

For instance, a friend of mine could not afford the payments on his house after the the housing bubble. The finance company tried to foreclose on the property. I recommended that he just stop paying the mortgage and invest that money. But , apparently, they can't find the deed

He's been living there without paying the mortgage for 14 years now. Under Ohio law, they ca't evict him if they can't find the deed soon, that property is his.

Hm.... I had the exact opposite experience.

So the guy next to bought the condo there, and similarly the bust came, and he was unable to pay the bill. They foreclosed, he refuse to leave.

So from 2007 to about 2014 or so, the place was a dump. He didn't trim the hedges. Didn't clean the front. The front door would bang when the wind blew, non-stop. He never fixed it. Why bother? It wasn't his place. Even his garage door was broken. It didn't sit straight on the ground. Who knows what he did to it, but it was always slightly cockeyed.

This went of for all those years.

Finally they had him removed, and a Mexican family moved in, fixed up the place, got the lights replaced and working, completely renovated the garage, and fixed up their back deck.

Getting the guy out of there was the best possible solution. Freaky is waking up at 4 am to a thunderstorm and hearing *slam*..... *slam slam*.......... *slam*.... of the broken door of the next condo rattling the entire night.

 

[Muhammed]

Even before I was an anarchist, I supported squatter rights.

Human beings have an unequivocal right to live on land that is not being used. Human beings have no right to claim ownership over what they do not personally sustain themselves.

I'm not an anarchist, but in political views I support squatters rights too, just like you. But probably for different reasons. Nobody wants to live right next door to an abandoned house. It's just plain creepy. And different states have different legal codes regarding the matter.

For instance, a friend of mine could not afford the payments on his house after the the housing bubble. The finance company tried to foreclose on the property. I recommended that he just stop paying the mortgage and invest that money. But , apparently, they can't find the deed

He's been living there without paying the mortgage for 14 years now. Under Ohio law, they ca't evict him if they can't find the deed soon, that property is his.

Hm.... I had the exact opposite experience.

So the guy next to bought the condo there, and similarly the bust came, and he was unable to pay the bill. They foreclosed, he refuse to leave.

So from 2007 to about 2014 or so, the place was a dump. He didn't trim the hedges. Didn't clean the front. The front door would bang when the wind blew, non-stop. He never fixed it. Why bother? It wasn't his place. Even his garage door was broken. It didn't sit straight on the ground. Who knows what he did to it, but it was always slightly cockeyed.

Sounds like you had a neighbor from hell.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Human beings have an unequivocal right to live on land that is not being used".

No, they don't. What yardstick would you use to determine what land is "being used"? Is land that is bought as an investment or with intent to use at some later date "being used"? If I load up the family and go to town for dinner and a movie I best not find you squatting in my house when I return home. Wouldn't end well. My land is my land whether I'm using it right that second or not.

 

[Onyx]

No, they don't. What yardstick would you use to determine what land is "being used"?

Mostly just refers to your house and any other thing you might of produced on your property.

People had property rights since antiquity, and in most cultures their claims were not drawn out on maps like they are today.

If I load up the family and go to town for dinner and a movie I best not find you squatting in my house when I return home.

That would be disrespectful and unjustified, although that kind of scenario never happens in real life.

Wouldn't end well. My land is my land whether I'm using it right that second or not.

Purely conjecture.

What do you have to base that claim on?

 

[boedicca]

Bottom line in America is that Squatters have no rights.

So what?

That doesn't mean they should not have rights. And actually, squatters do have rights in certain cities.

They don't have property rights...which is what squatting tries to subvert.

 

[Desperado]

Squatters are just the ultimate entitlement types. They believe in something for nothing. If Im not using my property, then they feel like they are entitled to it.
Be it my back forty or my car, They are nothing but thieves.

 

[Onyx]

Squatters are just the ultimate entitlement types.

Not really.

Most squatter communities are DIY oriented and anti-government.

They believe in something for nothing.

Actually they believe in making use of something that is being used for nothing.

Big difference.

If Im not using my property, then they feel like they are entitled to it.

If you abandoned "your property," then it is questionable on whether it even belongs to you.

Be it my back forty or my car, They are nothing but thieves.

The real thieves are those that write lil' pieces of paper allowing them to carve up the earth for themselves, even when they do nothing to sustain or merit their claim.

 

[Desperado]

Squatters are just the ultimate entitlement types.

Not really.

Most squatter communities are DIY oriented and anti-government.

They believe in something for nothing.

Actually they believe in making use of something that is being used for nothing.

Big difference.

If Im not using my property, then they feel like they are entitled to it.

if you abandoned "your property," then it is questionable on whether it even belongs to you.

Be it my back forty or my car, They are nothing but thieves.

The real thieves are those that write lil' pieces of paper allowing them to carve up the earth for themselves, even when they do nothing to sustain or merit their claim.

Define "Abandon"

 

[boedicca]

Squatters are just the ultimate entitlement types.

Not really.

Most squatter communities are DIY oriented and anti-government.

They believe in something for nothing.

Actually they believe in making use of something that is being used for nothing.

Big difference.

If Im not using my property, then they feel like they are entitled to it.

If you abandoned "your property," then it is questionable on whether it even belongs to you.

Be it my back forty or my car, They are nothing but thieves.

The real thieves are those that write lil' pieces of paper allowing them to carve up the earth for themselves, even when they do nothing to sustain or merit their claim.

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Squatters take possession of property that doesn't belong to them, and use it as if it's their own.

You can blah blah blah all you want, but you are just spewing sophistry.

 

[Onyx]

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Likewise.

Squatters take possession of property that doesn't belong to them, and use it as if it's their own.

Says who?

You can blah blah blah all you want, but you are just spewing sophistry.

You are using conjecture when you should be making substantive arguments.

 

[Onyx]

Define "Abandon"

Cease to support or look after something.

 

[9thIDdoc]

No, they don't. What yardstick would you use to determine what land is "being used"?

Mostly just refers to your house and any otherthing you might or produced on your property.

People had property rights since antiquity, and in most cultures their claims were not drawn out on maps like they are today.

If I load up the family and go to town for dinner and a movie I best not find you squatting in my house when I return home.

That would be disrespectful and unjustified, although that kind of scenario never happens in real life.

Wouldn't end well. My land is my land whether I'm using it right that second or not.

Purely conjecture.

What do you have to base that claim on?

"What do you have to base that claim on?"

In the end-should less drastic measures fail-I would have no problem dragging your cold limp body out of my house and off my land. I have a friend who raises hogs. They are always eager for a little extra protein. I have put my life on the line to defend my Country. It would be a mistake to assume I would not defend my home.