Skallagrim
Well-known member
Nobody can be that retarded. Must be trolling.
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.They're squatters, how much heat could they possibly be packing when you own the land and thus have ample supplies of fun toys? Also, ya know, calling law enforcement on them because they're illegally sitting on your property. Because it's your property, not theirs. Try sitting around in disneyland forever and see where that gets you.
How's that democracy going for you? *Looks at state of basically every Western nation*
I wasn't aware democracy was defined as "People vote to get unelected officials elected who then proceed to do whatever they want without a vote". Huh...Not as if they'd vote for anything worthwhile while brainwashed anyways...
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?
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.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.
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?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
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.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.
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?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.
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.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?
Ok we finally agree on something and violent retards should be put down.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.
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.Just because you buy something does not mean it is yours
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.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.
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.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.
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.First off it's not stealing. Stealing requires some form of force, unless they are armed and invading your land and kicking you off, or if they are hidden and being guerillas. Publicly staying someplace and then you doing NOTHING, not confronting them, not bringing a lawsuit, not calling the cops. Yeah fuck you, you don't own that land anymore. Again you saying you own something does not mean you own it, justice says that the person who actually stays there has the better claim. You won't have this problem on your own personal house because you live there. This is only a problem for rich people who have multiple properties and are too lazy to go to each of them and manage and take care of them.
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 going to leave my car on the public road to your house for 2000 years can I come back to it and expect to get it back? At a certain point you abandon things. Otherwise why the fuck should we respect the ownership papers of cocksuckers in the U.S. or English government. Let's say I have a paper proving my family owned your house thousands of years ago. Should I be able to just kick you out and fuck you? No these people are crazy and need to be taken down because they are a danger to others You don't have a right to that land, and your imaginary property rights that don't work how you think they do are not more important than someone's life.
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?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.
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.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 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 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.
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.abcnews.go.comThe 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.www.standard.co.ukImmigration 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.
I'm saying what it is used as in current application and interpretation, in conjunction with other existing and enforced laws.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.
I'm from California I know people that retardedNobody can be that retarded. Must be trolling.
Oh Lordy. Let me tell you about inventory tax. I'm just waiting for some fuckhead to extend that to all personal property.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?
Daddy government has little better to do than crush the pleb's rights.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.)
Personal property taxes? Those exist and are "fun".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.)
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.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.
TL;DR: property exists in a spectrum. My axis is value-add but others is absolutely different.I will note here there are specific circumstances where squatter's rights are actually useful.
I'm pretty sure you do actually get to keep it in this case, at least in the US.If you leave your car in my garage for a few years I don't get to keep it.
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.Captain X is part Native American, are you? Because guess what assuming you are American almost everywhere west of the original 13 colonies is stolen land. So you aren't entitled to it since it was stolen in the first place. Going through thousands of years of Byzantine records is a stupid process. That is why great leaders have historically tried to simplify legal codes, cutting the Gordian knot you could say. In other words no, no one says it's your land.
That comes across as immoral and exploitable, laws typically aren't ideal.I'm pretty sure you do actually get to keep it in this case, at least in the US.
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 itThat comes across as immoral and exploitable, laws typically aren't ideal.
Yeah, agreed. I admit that the comparison isn't ideal because you can't move land.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