United States Why are "squatter's rights" a thing?
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
In a way it is a sort of leftover from feudal times (albeit with progressive makeover) where feudal lord could lose the lands he was not exercising authority over. In modern times this principle gets corrupted however, as centralised state has monopoly on exercising exercising any authority, so you can only defend your property rights if you have the right connections, it is why such bullshit happens to common people rather than to the rich&powerful. I mean, when was the last time you heard of someone squatting on Bill Gates land?
In particular, the modern day squatter rights laws got a start during the Great Depression (or after WWII in Europe), as a way to prevent large landowners and landlords to drive up the rents by keeping part of their lands or apartments vacant. It didn't work back then, it doesn't work today, but politicians can claim they are protectinglumpenproletariat common people and well, it's not like it's their biggest donors that get hurt.
In particular, the modern day squatter rights laws got a start during the Great Depression (or after WWII in Europe), as a way to prevent large landowners and landlords to drive up the rents by keeping part of their lands or apartments vacant. It didn't work back then, it doesn't work today, but politicians can claim they are protecting
Seems like something a blunt object and a 6 foot hole could fix within a day.
King Arts
Well-known member
It’s perfectly rational. Why should we grant ownership to the guy who has a piece of paper instead of the one actually using it. Normal people won’t suffer from this it takes YEARS for adverse possession to take hold years where you could have called the sheriff or done something. Ownership is not eternal, if you leave a piece of property long enough you have abandoned it.
Even in the past that would result in you hanging for murder. Again adverse possession is a historical thing killing somebody skulking on your land at night is one thing but if they openly build something on land that you claim to own and you do nothing the court will side with them.
If a court is going to steal your property because someone's been sitting on it, you can hardly be in the moral-wrong by doing anything you want.
Not being serious when I say it, but what should you do to immoral people? Be moral?
King Arts
Well-known member
It's not immoral for someone to sit on your property. It is immoral to kill people over it.
Is it immoral to kill someone that's trying to steal your property?
It is entirely immoral for someone to sit on your property lmao, is it theirs or yours? Last time I checked people are not entitled to YOUR things.
Can I sit in your car? Can I sit on your phone?
King Arts
Well-known member
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.
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.
Is it yours? Then yes, only you are entitled to it still. If somebody else ends up using it they have to give it back. If you leave your car in my garage for a few years I don't get to keep it.
You quite literally have a right to land you own, that's how ownership works. If anything most Western nations already make ownership shady as hell because if the taxes stop flowing they steal it from you anyways. But I digress.
King Arts
Well-known member
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.
What logic are you using? Ownership has never worked in history the way you think it does with this pseudo libertarianism. No most people say it's not your land but the squatter is the true owner and you are the thief.
And why the hell would you assume an internet random to be American???
Edit: And squatters are hardly colonizers to begin with, so nice try bringing up the Indians of all people lmao.
Most people are gigantic retards, what they say doesn't matter for anything. "Most people" would be more than happy with countless horrific atrocities and harm.
King Arts
Well-known member
Well that is what your logic leads to. You said "Ownership lasts for all time even if the person abandoned the property" Again what determines ownership? Some societies thought you could not own land, we nowadays say you can't own air. You decide to claim something but it's not backed by anything. God looking at the Bible doesn't condemn squatting again what decides what is ownership and who owns what? The Christian tradition from way back in the old testament did not give owners absolute right over their land, they had to allow people to take some of the produce and were not allowed to stop them. Again show a historical proof of your logic being applied to ANYTHING except maybe personal artifacts that are privately owned.
As for why I thought you are American like 80 percent of this forum is American and we are speaking English. I'm sorry if I was wrong where are you from?
And yes the colonizers were squatters on a massive scale they came on the land that the Natives had and with their numbers pushed them out. It's a bit more armed mob that also did murder and rape on the side. But squatting was the big thing.
Ahh I see you are 13. Listen you don't have any right to decide what ownership is.
If squatters are comparable to colonizers, that just gives incentive to kill squatters on sight, given what colonizers did to native populations.
Now you're assuming random internet people's ages lmao. Maybe stop with the assumptions and do more arguments. Are you not saying that you should follow 'most people'? Argumentum ad poplum?
Most people are retards, there's a good reason why for many things we choose not to listen to the giant retard blob and listen to sanity instead. Most famous philosophers were hardly the common folk for their time and their words still hold true today.
King Arts
Well-known member
Go ahead and do that, though that just means that squatters will kill you first and take your land. They outnumber you so you really don't want to play that game, remember that the government is the thing preventing you from suffering from your dumb decisions.
I gave more arguments than you did lol, and you haven't responded to half of them.
Also what's this argumentum ad poplum? Is this babbys first internet debate? We live in a democracy the will of the majority is vital in determining what is the law, and is the secular form of justice.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
If something is yours, you're allowed to defend it.
Squatters' "rights" are much like the "right" to "free" health-care. That is: "I want something, you have something, and so rather than working, I'll take it from you!"
People who defend that kind of thing deserve the noose, plain and simple.
Squatters' "rights" are much like the "right" to "free" health-care. That is: "I want something, you have something, and so rather than working, I'll take it from you!"
People who defend that kind of thing deserve the noose, plain and simple.
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...
Sanity, in this thread? It's less common than you think...
King Arts
Well-known member
You are allowed to defend it legally. If you try other ways to keep your property you deserve to be killed and your family enslaved by the larger group so they become the new owners.
Wait so colonialism and genocide is okay now because 'the majority' decided upon it?