5 ms·

Not at all the same in Germany, but even as a property owner, I see some justification for effectively legalizing squatting in unused buildings. It would create

by tfourb 3y ago

Not at all the same in Germany, but even as a property owner, I see some justification for effectively legalizing squatting in unused buildings. It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Ideally this would be formalized and matched with a proper framework, i.e. municipalities can easily buy unused properties at a nominal cost, property owners can "convert" squatters into renters (who actually own rent) by bringing the property up to a minimum standard (which in turn the squatter would have to accept or move out), etc.

ekianjo 3y ago
> It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Also, rent controls, aren't they a thing in some parts of Germany like Berlin? That's what leads to poor usage of apartments, because if you own several places and the rent imposed by the authorities is too low for you to turn a profit, then it's not worth renting either.
- m000 3y ago
  Property and property rights are defined by the society. It's not a natural law or something. If society agrees that property works in a "use it or lose it" manner, so it is.
- redeeman 3y ago
  to my sibling comment, so what you're saying is, mob rule? this is probably defacto how it is, but it does not make it right. Nobody else has any rights to what I own, and I dont have rights to them. this kind of thinking that the "society" can just set rules that violates other people is a sick and disgusting development, this form of communist cancer has to be destroyed.
  - tfourb 3y ago
    See my sibling comment: property in most societies is something that not only confers rights to the owner, but also responsibilities. If you own an apartment in a city where there is great demand for housing, but (for whatever reason) you decide against making that apartment available for someone to use, society (through creating laws and regulations) can decide that you forfeit your rights to that property. It is the same logic that is behind laws and regulations that force people to improve their property in some way, i.e. by removing lead paint, installing more efficient heating, etc. This logic is well accepted throughout the world. "Property obligates" is the historical and present norm (except maybe in the U.S.) and the extreme libertarian view of "absolute rights" to property is probably what is a "sick and disgusting" development.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Look, there are two possible definitions of "ownership" and "property". One is, you own whatever you can physically keep. If you have a pretty stone, and I come to you, and bash your head in, and take your stone, guess what, it's mine now. If I scoop your brains out of your half-broken skull, I'll have a new ashtray too, so I profit off this exchange! The second definition is, whatever set of rules the society enforces to prevent the scenario described above, which define what I can keep, and under what conditions. You could say these rules "violate other people" and is "communist cancer", and you're right in a way - my natural right of coming over to you and bashing your head in is surely being violated now! But I prefer this anyway, because it also protects me from getting my head bashed in by someone stronger than me.
    - redeeman 3y ago
      your right ends where it takes away others. Forcing taxes on people is not that. I cannot violate others, and anyone who would give themselves the rights to do so, are bandits, oftentimes having formed a gang
      - vidarh 3y ago
        > your right ends where it takes away others. This is exactly Proudhon's argument for his infamous "property is theft" - property rights limits the freedom of others by restricting them from e.g. making use of the land you arbitrarily fence off - and why Dejacque, the father of libertarianism [1], and a firm anarcho-communist, agreed with him. The right-libertarian property fetishism is founded on ignoring the restrictions property rights places on the rights of others; something every legal system on the planet recognises to various degrees. As such, while none go as far as Proudhon and Dejacque wanted in stripping away property rights, the default of human society is to see property rights as inherently and necessarily limited for the protection of the rights of others. (I'd be all for giving you the opportunity of opting out of taxes, as long as society gains the freedom to refuse to deal with you if you opt out, up to and including freedom to deny you the use of everything funded by said society; freedom is a two-way street) [1] On the Human Being, Male and Female, Joseph Déjacque, is the first use of "libertarianism" as a political ideology. Dejacque accuses Proudhon of being a "moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian". Dejacque went on to publish "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian), the first libertarian periodical. On the Human Being, Male and Female, can be found here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-the-human-being-male-and-female https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t...
- tfourb 3y ago
  That is a very extreme view of property that is not shared by vast sections of global society. The German constitution has a very explicit article that states "Property obligates. Its use should simultaneously contribute to the wellbeing of the general public" (my translation) for example. Similarly, EU jurisprudence has confirmed that laws and regulations can limit the absolute control over individual property, if that contributes to an overall more important social good. Many countries around the world actually do not have permanent private ownership of land/buildings or limit it in significant ways. Historically, basically all societies and legal systems have limited individual property rights in certain, sometimes very extreme ways. The Uber-liberal definition of property that you cite is something of an outlier. Regarding your question on rent control in Germany: There are several layers: - Some housing is government/municipality owned (unfortunately not a lot). The rent for those usually covers the cost of providing that housing but not more so it is quite cheap. - Some private property has been built with government subsidies. This is bound for a certain time (I think 20 years or so) to a government-set rent and tenants usually profit from this even afterwards, because it is very hard in Germany to increase rent on existing tenants. - Since 2015 there has been a national law on rent control. It covers municipalities which have been specifically designated by state governments. Landlords covered by the law can not increase the rent for a new tenant by more than 10% over the local average, but there are a lot of exceptions: buildings built or substantially improved after 1st October 2014, properties that already had a higher rent prior to the law, etc. It also relies on the tenants for enforcement and their willingness to engage in a protracted legal battle. - Berlin tried to introduce much harsher rent controls. These were declared illegal by the courts, because state governments (in the view of the courts) do not have the competency to introduce certain types of rent control. > if you own several places and the rent imposed by the authorities is too low for you to turn a profit, then it's not worth renting either. This may be the case for new construction. But most existing properties are paid off, ongoing investment is limited (I can say this with some authority, as I own a couple of properties in two different German cities). The huge rent increases in German cities do not come from long-term tenants (because they are protected against steep increases by law). It comes from landlords taking advantage of huge demand by increasing the rent dramatically for new tenants. This is pure profit for the landlord, as the property has been profitable even before the rent increase. This is what most attempts at rent control in Germany are targeted at.
- Hamuko 3y ago
  There's actually quite a lot of restrictions on what I can and can't do with my car. For example, if I don't get my car inspected, I can't drive it on public roads. And even if I want to drive it on private land, it must be within a fenced off area that is inaccessible to third parties. I also can't just erect whatever buildings I want on my plot of land, but rather I need to get a planning permission. Turning my land into a garbage dump is also gonna get me into shit.
- ricardobayes 3y ago
  I do prefer this level-headed approach especially when it comes to a basic need, like housing. High rents are partially caused by low available inventory so if they can fix it by increasing taxes of unused properties, that's a great way of doing that. The other ways I've seen, like banning foreigners from owning properties are kind of bad, that's a net negative outcome (I think).
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Property laws aren't law of physics. The natural state is, you own what you can keep. If I come to you, and bash your head in, and take your all possessions - well, it's mine now, as you weren't able to keep any of it (or your life). A rule-based society is what lets you cry foul when someone "infringes" on your "property rights", and for that to mean anything. A civilization is what lets you forget, day to day, that all the deeds and leases and contracts are just thin abstractions, mutual self-delusions keeping the knives sheathed and the guns holstered. But we're not a post-scarcity civilization yet. Happy society giveth, an unhappy society taketh away. If you're at the point that over half of your society is worried about keeping roof over their heads, a substantial chunk of it haven't one, and a noticeable part of that group is happy to break in to temporary empty housing - don't turn your back on your society, lest property again stops meaning anything, and your own life may be forfeit too.
- vidarh 3y ago
  There is not a single jurisdiction in the world where "property is property" in your sense of people being free to do what you want with it, because allowing that would be a massive attack on society and others ability to enjoy their property, and so every jurisdiction on the planet recognises that for a functioning society, property rights must be limited. Most countries have long lists of exceptions, ranging from limiting your ability to be a nuisance, to limiting your ability to deny others access to various resources, and up to and including guaranteeing public access to some types of property in some countries (e.g. in Norway you have a legal right to cross, forage in and camp on most undeveloped rural land, irrespective of the wishes of the landowner) because it is seen to increase liberty. In Norway, this freedom to roam was seen as so obvious that it was one of the last parts of Norwegian law to be codified, because courts just took it into account despite Norwegian law generally not having any common-law component or system of precedent binding courts.
ricardobayes 3y ago
That's exactly what they are trying to do. With the new law signed recently, they are increasing the yearly tax heavily on unused properties.
- everybodyknows 3y ago
  That is of course the way to redistribute idle personal property to socially positive ends that does not involve imposing misery upon entire neighborhoods. It's some comment on the perversity of legislative processes that such taxes are not the norm everywhere. Admittedly, enforcement efforts will surely be challenged.

by tfourb 3y ago

ekianjo 3y ago

> It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Also, rent controls, aren't they a thing in some parts of Germany like Berlin? That's what leads to poor usage of apartments, because if you own several places and the rent imposed by the authorities is too low for you to turn a profit, then it's not worth renting either.

m000 3y ago
Property and property rights are defined by the society. It's not a natural law or something. If society agrees that property works in a "use it or lose it" manner, so it is.
redeeman 3y ago
to my sibling comment, so what you're saying is, mob rule? this is probably defacto how it is, but it does not make it right. Nobody else has any rights to what I own, and I dont have rights to them. this kind of thinking that the "society" can just set rules that violates other people is a sick and disgusting development, this form of communist cancer has to be destroyed.
- tfourb 3y ago
  See my sibling comment: property in most societies is something that not only confers rights to the owner, but also responsibilities. If you own an apartment in a city where there is great demand for housing, but (for whatever reason) you decide against making that apartment available for someone to use, society (through creating laws and regulations) can decide that you forfeit your rights to that property. It is the same logic that is behind laws and regulations that force people to improve their property in some way, i.e. by removing lead paint, installing more efficient heating, etc. This logic is well accepted throughout the world. "Property obligates" is the historical and present norm (except maybe in the U.S.) and the extreme libertarian view of "absolute rights" to property is probably what is a "sick and disgusting" development.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Look, there are two possible definitions of "ownership" and "property". One is, you own whatever you can physically keep. If you have a pretty stone, and I come to you, and bash your head in, and take your stone, guess what, it's mine now. If I scoop your brains out of your half-broken skull, I'll have a new ashtray too, so I profit off this exchange! The second definition is, whatever set of rules the society enforces to prevent the scenario described above, which define what I can keep, and under what conditions. You could say these rules "violate other people" and is "communist cancer", and you're right in a way - my natural right of coming over to you and bashing your head in is surely being violated now! But I prefer this anyway, because it also protects me from getting my head bashed in by someone stronger than me.
  - redeeman 3y ago
    your right ends where it takes away others. Forcing taxes on people is not that. I cannot violate others, and anyone who would give themselves the rights to do so, are bandits, oftentimes having formed a gang
    - vidarh 3y ago
      > your right ends where it takes away others. This is exactly Proudhon's argument for his infamous "property is theft" - property rights limits the freedom of others by restricting them from e.g. making use of the land you arbitrarily fence off - and why Dejacque, the father of libertarianism [1], and a firm anarcho-communist, agreed with him. The right-libertarian property fetishism is founded on ignoring the restrictions property rights places on the rights of others; something every legal system on the planet recognises to various degrees. As such, while none go as far as Proudhon and Dejacque wanted in stripping away property rights, the default of human society is to see property rights as inherently and necessarily limited for the protection of the rights of others. (I'd be all for giving you the opportunity of opting out of taxes, as long as society gains the freedom to refuse to deal with you if you opt out, up to and including freedom to deny you the use of everything funded by said society; freedom is a two-way street) [1] On the Human Being, Male and Female, Joseph Déjacque, is the first use of "libertarianism" as a political ideology. Dejacque accuses Proudhon of being a "moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian". Dejacque went on to publish "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian), the first libertarian periodical. On the Human Being, Male and Female, can be found here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-the-human-being-male-and-female https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t...
tfourb 3y ago
That is a very extreme view of property that is not shared by vast sections of global society. The German constitution has a very explicit article that states "Property obligates. Its use should simultaneously contribute to the wellbeing of the general public" (my translation) for example. Similarly, EU jurisprudence has confirmed that laws and regulations can limit the absolute control over individual property, if that contributes to an overall more important social good. Many countries around the world actually do not have permanent private ownership of land/buildings or limit it in significant ways. Historically, basically all societies and legal systems have limited individual property rights in certain, sometimes very extreme ways. The Uber-liberal definition of property that you cite is something of an outlier. Regarding your question on rent control in Germany: There are several layers: - Some housing is government/municipality owned (unfortunately not a lot). The rent for those usually covers the cost of providing that housing but not more so it is quite cheap. - Some private property has been built with government subsidies. This is bound for a certain time (I think 20 years or so) to a government-set rent and tenants usually profit from this even afterwards, because it is very hard in Germany to increase rent on existing tenants. - Since 2015 there has been a national law on rent control. It covers municipalities which have been specifically designated by state governments. Landlords covered by the law can not increase the rent for a new tenant by more than 10% over the local average, but there are a lot of exceptions: buildings built or substantially improved after 1st October 2014, properties that already had a higher rent prior to the law, etc. It also relies on the tenants for enforcement and their willingness to engage in a protracted legal battle. - Berlin tried to introduce much harsher rent controls. These were declared illegal by the courts, because state governments (in the view of the courts) do not have the competency to introduce certain types of rent control. > if you own several places and the rent imposed by the authorities is too low for you to turn a profit, then it's not worth renting either. This may be the case for new construction. But most existing properties are paid off, ongoing investment is limited (I can say this with some authority, as I own a couple of properties in two different German cities). The huge rent increases in German cities do not come from long-term tenants (because they are protected against steep increases by law). It comes from landlords taking advantage of huge demand by increasing the rent dramatically for new tenants. This is pure profit for the landlord, as the property has been profitable even before the rent increase. This is what most attempts at rent control in Germany are targeted at.
Hamuko 3y ago
There's actually quite a lot of restrictions on what I can and can't do with my car. For example, if I don't get my car inspected, I can't drive it on public roads. And even if I want to drive it on private land, it must be within a fenced off area that is inaccessible to third parties. I also can't just erect whatever buildings I want on my plot of land, but rather I need to get a planning permission. Turning my land into a garbage dump is also gonna get me into shit.
ricardobayes 3y ago
I do prefer this level-headed approach especially when it comes to a basic need, like housing. High rents are partially caused by low available inventory so if they can fix it by increasing taxes of unused properties, that's a great way of doing that. The other ways I've seen, like banning foreigners from owning properties are kind of bad, that's a net negative outcome (I think).
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Property laws aren't law of physics. The natural state is, you own what you can keep. If I come to you, and bash your head in, and take your all possessions - well, it's mine now, as you weren't able to keep any of it (or your life). A rule-based society is what lets you cry foul when someone "infringes" on your "property rights", and for that to mean anything. A civilization is what lets you forget, day to day, that all the deeds and leases and contracts are just thin abstractions, mutual self-delusions keeping the knives sheathed and the guns holstered. But we're not a post-scarcity civilization yet. Happy society giveth, an unhappy society taketh away. If you're at the point that over half of your society is worried about keeping roof over their heads, a substantial chunk of it haven't one, and a noticeable part of that group is happy to break in to temporary empty housing - don't turn your back on your society, lest property again stops meaning anything, and your own life may be forfeit too.
vidarh 3y ago
There is not a single jurisdiction in the world where "property is property" in your sense of people being free to do what you want with it, because allowing that would be a massive attack on society and others ability to enjoy their property, and so every jurisdiction on the planet recognises that for a functioning society, property rights must be limited. Most countries have long lists of exceptions, ranging from limiting your ability to be a nuisance, to limiting your ability to deny others access to various resources, and up to and including guaranteeing public access to some types of property in some countries (e.g. in Norway you have a legal right to cross, forage in and camp on most undeveloped rural land, irrespective of the wishes of the landowner) because it is seen to increase liberty. In Norway, this freedom to roam was seen as so obvious that it was one of the last parts of Norwegian law to be codified, because courts just took it into account despite Norwegian law generally not having any common-law component or system of precedent binding courts.

ricardobayes 3y ago

That's exactly what they are trying to do. With the new law signed recently, they are increasing the yearly tax heavily on unused properties.

everybodyknows 3y ago
That is of course the way to redistribute idle personal property to socially positive ends that does not involve imposing misery upon entire neighborhoods. It's some comment on the perversity of legislative processes that such taxes are not the norm everywhere. Admittedly, enforcement efforts will surely be challenged.