4 ms·

"But landlords cannot just take or misplace my stuff, especially if I pay rent and have some rights." They sure can. Years ago I had a shitty landlord clear a

• ericpauley 3y ago
  Someone can also rob your house if you own it. Now you may have some legal recourse, but...
  • jqpabc123 3y ago
    The "legal recourse" is what defines "ownership". If someone can take or destroy your stuff *without* legal recourse, then you don't really "own" it'
    • Dylan16807 3y ago
      Okay, and how does this connect to home ownership? You have even less recourse against the average burglar than the average landlord.
      • jqpabc123 3y ago
        You have even less recourse against the average burglar than the average landlord. ??? Where I live, you can literally kill the average burglar for breaking into your home. That is pretty much the ultimate recourse. If you're not home and the police can find your burglar, you can legally press charges against him/her.
        • Dylan16807 3y ago
          You can physically stop a landlord from illegally dumping your items too. I'm talking about legal recourse after the fact. You can win both cases, at your own expense, but the burglar is much more likely to be judgement-proof.
          • jqpabc123 3y ago
            If a crime was committed, the state generally assumes the prosecution --- i.e. no expense to you. You can't get blood out of a rock but you can incarcerate it.
            • Dylan16807 3y ago
              That's free if it's big enough to get their attention, and the culprit is known. But I don't want free revenge, I want my stuff/money back. An actual remedy.
              • jqpabc123 3y ago
                I want my stuff/money back. As the Rolling Stones pointed out years ago (maybe before you were born), "You can't always get what you want" --- yadda, yadda, etc., etc.. It is not just about giving you what you want. The fact that *legal* retribution of some sort applies if someone takes or destroys your stuff is a defining characteristic of "ownership".
                • Dylan16807 3y ago
                  Interesting that you cut the line there, because control over personal possessions usually goes under the "need" category. Anyway I'm still not sure what point you were originally trying to make, because defeating a landlord in court and getting paid back is at least as good of a proof of "ownership". Both situations have big flaws in the legal recourse, but you definitely have it in both situations. Though I prefer the one where I get compensation.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• chimeracoder 3y ago
  > They sure can. Years ago I had a shitty landlord clear an apartment I'd moved 95% of my belongings from but before the term of my lease had ended. Now you may have some legal recourse, but the cost/time associated with litigating a matter like that tends to outweigh the remedy. The existence of legal standing is what defines the property rights. If you're going to move the goalposts to "you don't own it unless you have legal standing and the means to pursue legal recourse", then you might as well say that only the extremely wealthy have any property rights at all.