5 ms·
Depends what the owner of that house wants to do. It will be within their right to evacuate that person. Otherwise if you want a house all you have to do is go
by oDot 6y ago
Depends what the owner of that house wants to do. It will be within their right to evacuate that person.
Otherwise if you want a house all you have to do is go bankrupt then pick an empty mansion.
- krapp 6y ago>It will be within their right to evacuate that person. But that would require coercion, since that person doesn't want to leave.
- oDot 6y agoI have clarified my original definition, that would be self defense, in the same way that if someone tries to coerce a knife into your throat, you can coerce their face to the pavement.
- krapp 6y agoYou can redefine terms any way you like, but coercion in response to coercion is still coercion. That's not an "economy void of coercion", just one where the monopoly on violence has been replaced by a free market of violence. After all, if the person squatting on what you consider to be your property doesn't recognize your claim of ownership, it would seem that you pose a greater threat to them than they do to you, especially if you're trying to remove them from the property when they're not presenting an immediate threat of physical harm.
- eeZah7Ux 6y agoThat's a quite an arbitrary definition of self defense