Skallagrim
Well-known member
Nobody can be that retarded. Must be trolling.
United States Why are "squatter's rights" a thing?
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
King Arts
Well-known member
Remember the French Revolution, remember the Soviet Union. Idiot losers who always defend the rich no matter what end up getting killed and their famillies end up raped because they think they are all powerful when they are a small amount of the population. Whereas intelligent leaders like the Romans like Augustus and Caesar fully understood that you sometimes have to readjust ownership of territory. Are you arguing about morality or about power? Also you haven't answered how you justify ownership? If you had a piece of paper from the US 20 years ago that said you own the land but now the US says you don't own it and it's someone else it's not theft your ownership is based on the gurantee of the government.
The only intelligent thing you said is getting the police involved.
Also it's not your property, if you build a house on disneyland, and disney does nothing about it for 40 years. That land with the house on it is YOURS. Get
What exactly is your point. Are you just bitching about democracy, even though this doctrine goes back at least 400 years when monarchy was still a thing?
Are you stupid? If you are being violent and aggressive you would be dealt with. Attacking anyone that comes on your land makes you violent and worthy of death.
Wait so colonialism and genocide is okay now because 'the majority' decided upon it?
ThatZenoGuy
Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
For the love of god if you buy a plot of land it's yours until you die or you give it to somebody else. Any debate to the contrary is silly semantics at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst.
Yeah sure, if a private army pops up on your land and you're just one person, it is 'theirs' technically, but last time I checked 'technicalities' can result in complete nonsense.
It is your property, end of story. You bought it, you own it. Do you not own the fucking furniture in your house or can some nobody sit on it for a day and proclaim it theirs?
I mean randomly attacking people on your property is probably a sign you're a violent retard, sure. But randomly sitting on somebody's land and proclaiming you have the right to stay there is parasitical, immoral, and grotesque.
King Arts
Well-known member
Just because you buy something does not mean it is yours, if the person selling it to you does not have the right to sell it I'm sorry but you got scammed if we can catch the original thief we would give you the funds back that he scammed you out of but that's not a guarantee. Unless you think if I sold you the Golden Gate bridge you now have rights to it?
But beyond that, it's not intellectually dishonest you have to base what your claim and morals are founded on even claiming ownership what is it based on? Again I can get it if it's something you use like you live there, but what is your claim to owernship based on if you say "Oh yeah this island I found it on the other side of the world, and I'm going to do nothing." This is diffrent than if you are actually using the island building on it, living there, renting it to someone else. But just saying fallow land is yours well you need to base it on something.
Again let's say you stole the furniture and I bought it. Is it still mine? No ownership is more complex than you think it is, thats why we have lawyers.
Ok we finally agree on something and violent retards should be put down.
But there are two things here first of all it's not randomly sitting in this example with adverse possession the woman lived on the land since she was a child she legitimately thought it was hers. There is nothing immoral about this, if your morals can have someone accidently be immoral they are shit morals.
I can't debate if it's grotesque or not because I don't get what you mean.
Second even if she knew using adverse possession is not parasitical in fact the original owner is more parasitical. Again the first owner did NOTHING with the land it was barren he did not visit it often he did not manage it, it was fallow land not economically productive towards society. The lady on the other hand used it as a goat pen. I don't know if she is a goat herder or what but that has economic value she uses that land to feet the goats the goats are housed there she can sell their milk or their meat. Again society bennefits much more from taxing herders when they produce things of value like animal milk, animal pelt, animal meat, etc. than some land Barron who does nothing with the land so it can't be taxed yet is still going to require protection from the law. Again society is give and take its not all give and it should not be all take. The village, the city, the nation and tribe benefits from the land being used instead of it just being there because someone says it's theirs.
ThatZenoGuy
Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
Yes, yes it absolutely does mean it's yours. We can get into issues such as purchased fraudulent goods but unless you're going to make the claim that all American land is legitimately stolen, that is irrelevant.
Lawyers are blood sucking parasites and nobody with half a brain treats their profession as anything more than a ridiculous frivolity. Aside from the very, very rare few times they are useful, they are mostly just a good way to drain money out of people and serve giant mega-corporations.
And again is the land stolen? OP's video certainly does not say as such.
I hate people who aren't using land as much as the next person, but that doesn't mean you can just steal it from them. That issue is more complex than "SIEZE THE MEANS OF LAND OWNERSHIP" and frankly I am not experienced enough to know what to do in that situation. But I am experienced enough to know that land-theft from lawful owners of land is not good.
It's a retarded leftist undermining of property rights. First off it starts with a non-problem of "abandoned property", which normal countries solve through local country or equivalent taking the land in question for non-payment of property taxes. First it's decades. Then it's years. Then it's a year. Then it's months. And then it goes to full commie approved situation where you effectively don't own your house because when you go to a vacation for a few weeks or even days and someone can just come in and take it, boom, you're homeless, and don't even try to hurt the commie sacred cows because they are poor and oppressed while "life is more important than property" so you can't just go and kick their asses yourself or with hired thugs either.
And part of the problem is that cops won't do anything anytime soon, if ever, because muh vulnerable people.
Colo. Family Tries to Regain Home From Occupiers
Dayna Donovan, 43, of Littleton, Colo., about ten miles south of Denver, was in for a surprise when they learned two strangers were living in their home for eight months and have still not moved out despite a judge ruling they had to be out by the weekend.
abcnews.go.com
The hard men removing squatters in Spain
Some squatters in Spain demand cash before leaving - so eviction firms have arisen to handle the talks.
www.bbc.co.uk
Squatters have taken my £4m home
A lawyer told how he was "horrified" to find squatters had moved into his half-finished £4million home.
www.standard.co.uk
Immigration officer returns home to find family of Romanian gypsies squatting in her house
A UK Border Agency official came home from a night out to find Romanian gypsies squatting in her house – and even wearing her clothes.
www.mirror.co.uk
Again, it's something for the state to handle, not random people who decide to declare stuff abandoned and take it. That is unless you want the society to go back to semi-anarchical state where everything that's not guarded by some angry men with weapons 24\7 (soon angry machine spirits with remote controlled gun drones) at the time is up for grabs and court documents, property taxes, papers and other crap are just for suckers.
Last edited:
King Arts
Well-known member
So again how do you justify land ownership without government recognition? I really need to know what country you’re from to make a good example. But with America there is land that no one owns like the woods I’m not talking about nature preservation or national parks either. No one except hermit live there, it’s uncategorized land. If I tell you I’m claiming all of it do you acknowledge my ownership even if the government would laugh at me?
As for land being stolen all land is. Florida used to be native land taken by Spaniards taken by British, taken by Spanish again and then taken by the US. It changed hands a lot finding the original owners in such a chaotic mess would be hell.
I understand your dislike of current lawyers. But with complex society and legal codes a group of educated people versed in the law is needed. Hell Ancient Rome had them.
I mean mass redistribution is communism and is bad but if you don’t take away and punish bad actors they will corrupt society and lead to communism as well. Commies did not pop out of thin air they came about because the government was incompetent.
I mean saying something is a slippery slope to communism is laughably when the thing predates communism by centuries at that point everything is communism. Also this is being done by the state it’s a legal process. Not some random person trying stuff. Except in those horror stories you posted where rule of law fails.It's a retarded leftist undermining of property rights. First off it starts with a non-problem of "abandoned property", which normal countries solve through local country or equivalent taking the land in question for non-payment of property taxes. First it's decades. Then it's years. Then it's a year. Then it's months. And then it goes to full commie approved situation where you effectively don't own your house because when you go to a vacation for a few weeks or even days and someone can just come in and take it, boom, you're homeless, and don't even try to hurt the commie sacred cows because they are poor and oppressed while "life is more important than property" so you can't just go and kick their asses yourself or with hired thugs either.
And part of the problem is that cops won't do anything anytime soon, if ever, because muh vulnerable people.
Colo. Family Tries to Regain Home From Occupiers
Dayna Donovan, 43, of Littleton, Colo., about ten miles south of Denver, was in for a surprise when they learned two strangers were living in their home for eight months and have still not moved out despite a judge ruling they had to be out by the weekend.The hard men removing squatters in Spain
Some squatters in Spain demand cash before leaving - so eviction firms have arisen to handle the talks.www.bbc.co.ukSquatters have taken my £4m home
A lawyer told how he was "horrified" to find squatters had moved into his half-finished £4million home.Immigration officer returns home to find family of Romanian gypsies squatting in her house
A UK Border Agency official came home from a night out to find Romanian gypsies squatting in her house – and even wearing her clothes.
Again, it's something for the state to handle, not random people who decide to declare stuff abandoned and take it. That is unless you want the society to go back to semi-anarchical state where everything that's not guarded by some angry men with weapons 24\7 (soon angry machine spirits with remote controlled gun drones) at the time is up for grabs and court documents, property taxes, papers and other crap are just for suckers.
I'm saying what it is used as in current application and interpretation, in conjunction with other existing and enforced laws.
In which case, yes, it is a failure of rule of law.
Before well into the industrial era and in very backwards states, it was a solution to a real problem of lack of proven documentation of ownership of land, especially among the poor, being a pretty common issue, and so this and many related laws were made as a reasonable band-aid.
But now, in the age of countless databases, registries, taxes, infinite bureaucracy and so on, there is less and less excuse for people to not know that they are taking someone else's land, yet more people are doing it more brazenly. And as few of these links show, it's not just "horror stories", there are whole businesses with many employees being set up based on helping people deal with squatters, so it can't be that rare.
And most suspiciously, the problem is not present in all western or developed countries, only in several of them, with legal systems skewed towards more "progressive" ideas.
Last edited:
I'm from California I know people that retarded
Vetrom
war
Oh Lordy. Let me tell you about inventory tax. I'm just waiting for some fuckhead to extend that to all personal property.
(In many u.s. jurisdictions, an inventory (as in all unsold stock) tax is levied at year end on all businesses, and an assessor can try to be very expansive on what constitutes inventory vs other property.)
ThatZenoGuy
Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
Daddy government has little better to do than crush the pleb's rights.
bintananth
behind a desk
Personal property taxes? Those exist and are "fun".
"You own a riding lawn mower? The taxman will be sending you a bill."
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I will note here there are specific circumstances where squatter's rights are actually useful.
I know of one specific case in my hometown where a gentleman found out he legally inherited a few feet on the end of a neighbor's lot (This was some kind of zoning snafu) and promptly put a concrete traffic barrier there and demanded an outrageous sum of money equivalent to the entire value of their home for his four-foot strip of land that lay between their house and the road.
They were able to successfully argue squatter's rights because their driveway had been there for twenty years. This was a just outcome to an unreasonable claim (His demanding so much money and blocking their access with a concrete barrier probably also irritated the judge, if he'd asked for a more sensible couple of hundred bucks the judge may have swung the other way... but also the family probably would have just paid it and not gone to trial.)
This is, of course, a very narrow and specific set of circumstances and I don't know if such events outnumber "bad" uses such as were listed above. I wouldn't be surprised if it swung either direction, honestly.
I know of one specific case in my hometown where a gentleman found out he legally inherited a few feet on the end of a neighbor's lot (This was some kind of zoning snafu) and promptly put a concrete traffic barrier there and demanded an outrageous sum of money equivalent to the entire value of their home for his four-foot strip of land that lay between their house and the road.
They were able to successfully argue squatter's rights because their driveway had been there for twenty years. This was a just outcome to an unreasonable claim (His demanding so much money and blocking their access with a concrete barrier probably also irritated the judge, if he'd asked for a more sensible couple of hundred bucks the judge may have swung the other way... but also the family probably would have just paid it and not gone to trial.)
This is, of course, a very narrow and specific set of circumstances and I don't know if such events outnumber "bad" uses such as were listed above. I wouldn't be surprised if it swung either direction, honestly.
ThatZenoGuy
Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
As you say that's...Very specific. Frankly less of a squatters issue and more of a 'gigantic douchebag' issue. Such people are problems anywhere they are found.
Vetrom
war
TL;DR: property exists in a spectrum. My axis is value-add but others is absolutely different.
There's also interesting examples of rights that come from different traditions that could be equally valid, but also come with different expectations, obligations, and limits.
In particular I think of the 'everyman's right' in Nordic tradition. Its essentially a right to travel but not a right to exclusive exploitation, which of course creates a great gulf between wholly private rights vs a tragedy of commons, but thats also pretty much the only legal tradition ive seen which actually tries to balance the two.
In modern life we absolutely see situations of absentee landlordism. If a landlord is assigned through some government function but the land is effectively ignored if someone doesn't pay or occupy it... Does land right still exist (land value tax ideas say maybe but there should be limits). If the historocal precendent is ignored, at what point does local governmental right take precedence? (This is a classic and complicated American jurisprudence question which has evolved continuously in our republic.)
In the U.S. for example, we definitely dont have the Nordic example of 'everyman's right', but local governance could take priority over certain land assignments depending on the details. We have some overriding federal concerns that I do think are legitimate but probably overzealously prosecuted.
In my personal opinion, value add activities should be encouraged and rent seeking discouraged. The challenge is in both maintaining a rule of law and teaching the law to distinguish between the two.
I'm sure I missed a few things, debate them?
Poe
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure you do actually get to keep it in this case, at least in the US.
No the land wasn't "stolen," when you conquer another nation or win a war against them and gain land it isn't stealing, since the very thing that determines who owns land is who can violently prevent others from dominating it. Stealing is a function of living within a society with property laws and them being broken.
ThatZenoGuy
Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
Poe
Well-known member
Maybe, but I think there's more nuance under the scenario of leaving your car on someone elses property for years than you moving onto someones property and being able to claim it