No, you are not legally right, and the judges who suggested you are should be dismissed punitively, that is my amateur legal opinion.Sure, you can argue these. But when you do, you have to stop making legal arguments, as legally I'm right, so you are making a moral argument. But you kept making legal arguments regardless, so I stopped paying attention.
And i require a good faith effort to establish that the owner either no longer exists or actually does know what he is in process of losing his property and doesn't care regardless of that.Yes, it is much easier. Which is why I require something along the lines of 15 years of open and blatant occupation for real estate, as opposed to what I require for tubberware or a sweatshirt.
I find practical nonsense in what you believe, i do not claim moral contradiction. 15 years is an arbitrary amount of time for someone to lose property rights for the "crime" of not paying attention to it. There should be no such thing.What you haven't been able to do is actually find a moral contradiction in what I believe. In contrast, I've pointed out numerous incongruencies with yours. Here's another one:
Don't play smartass. This shit is exactly why in case of highly valued business assets the buyer has to do due diligence in checking if what they are buying is not stolen, mortgaged or something like that.Why? That's completely not how things work generally. It doesn't work that way for theft. Why should transfer of the item grant the unknowing new owner actual ownership? Do you not see how easy this would be to abuse by actual communists simply reselling rich peoples stuff for little, having no assets of their own, and bankrupting someone?
Either way, this is something for courts to settle between all the people involved and with the owner being compensated in the end.
No, your position is based on larping as Wild West for no goddamn reason at all. It is not resistant to communist taking advantage at all.See, this is the difference between your position and my position. Mine is based in reality, resistant to communists taking advantage of it, and self consistent. Marduk needs to constantly add new rules to deal with every example I throw him, isn't based in reality, and apparently now has a massive gaping hole for communists to walk through.
1. Why 15 years? Communist say it should be 15 days, suddenly squatting becomes a nice way to "confiscate" property by activists.
2. Send the factory owner to Siberia for 16 years. Congratulations, whoever is supposed to grab the property can.
If anything, by saying that you have demonstrated incredible ignorance of which political factions are the biggest fans of squatters and laws furthering their interests.
Berlin Protests in Support of Squatters Turn Violent (Published 2016)
A demonstration on Saturday swelled to 3,500 people, and some threw rocks and bottles at police officers, who responded with tear gas and billy clubs.
www.nytimes.com
Well then we disagree on that, i do believe it is theft, violence or not, changes no damn thing.Again, this is in dispute. All you are saying is 'nuh-uh'. I've no interest in getting into a repitition of yes and nos with you.
Also, there very much are property rights being created all the time with abandoned goods. When someone takes a couch off the side of the road, that's a property right being created. I'm saying that real estate property rights happen the same sorta way, just take longer because we've got to be sure stuff got effectively abandoned.
Again, you put the cart before the horse. I don't believe what is happening is theft. Thus you purposely comparing it to something with violence in it means you are trying to slip theft into my definition. Stop trying to change my definition.
The state gives more damns about legal and especially political and ideological arguments than amateur moralizing. It dismisses moralizing from greater moral authorities than both of us combined.(I've combined your rants about the state.)
Then again you rant about the state. Lol, again, the state doesn't agree with you, make moral arguments. Just saying the state has a moral duty to do 'stuff' still doesn't work, as the question arises "what exactly does the state have a moral duty to do?" I.e. it still leaves wide open the moral question of how do property rights work.
Well if people were eternal you would have had a point but i'm pretty sure immortality technology does not exist yet. However, the golden standard is lifetime plus whatever one's will says if given. Failing that, every legal system has own procedures for heirless property and squatting is not it.I'm still, btw, waiting for a moral argument about why you think property rights are some eternal thing that can't be abandoned. That, frankly, is absurd to me. Property rights are temporal (not temporary, necessarily). It's obvious in the way people behave, as they behave as if they are not necessarily permanent. I've given numerous examples of this.
A contract is a contract. If you can get it in writing from the deed owner that he doesn't give a shit, go ahead. Unawareness of trespassers on own property however is neither a contract nor a crime and so it should not be punished with loss of highly valuable real estate.Property rights can be complicated things, for example, you could buy a property right for you and your family to walk over part of someone's property (called an easement). I currently rent the property rights to where I live from someone else. This includes them not having the right to walk into land they own whenever they want to, because I rent it. Thinking that they are just a simple thing of "the deed owner can do whatever" shows a complete lack of understanding and respect for property rights.