3 ms·

This goes back to old common law, and is also why the U.S. does this. There isn't a registry for renting, it's private contracts between private individuals. Th

This goes back to old common law, and is also why the U.S. does this. There isn't a registry for renting, it's private contracts between private individuals. The only way to validate a contract dispute is via civil litigation. It's a core example of how the foundations of western society were not built for, and failed to evolve for the population and socioeconomic problems of today.

woodruffw 2y ago
To take this explanation a step further: the intuition that someone should have is that the police can't meaningfully do anything here, since they're not equipped (much less competent) to evaluate private agreements without an independent finding of fact from a court. Generalizing the GP's desired outcome here would be a civil liberties nightmare: the police would either need to be informed of every private deal I make (no thanks), or would be empowered to determine on the spot whether I'm "rightfully" living where I say I do. Most people would rather have a society with occasional squatters and winding legal decisions than one where the police can snoop your lease agreement or unilaterally kick you out of your house in the middle of the night.
- tshaddox 2y ago
  What’s so special about rent here that makes it so difficult for police to evaluate? Surely rent is not particularly confounding compared to, say, theft or kidnapping.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    Rent is determined by a private contract, like GP said. It doesn’t even have to be a formal contract in most countries. It’s essentially a civil concern and not a criminal one, unlike theft or kidnapping.
    - al_borland 2y ago
      Couldn’t this logic then be extended to anything? People could steal anything with impunity. The police can’t prove I didn’t have an informal agreement to be the sole operator of your car, for example. For kidnapping, how can they prove I’m not just a baby sitter? If we are going to take people at their word, why would buildings be put in a different class than people or things? I get not wanting people with a legitimate claim to a building to be kicked out, but in the case of a building like this, wouldn’t zoning issue prevent it from being used as housing? Even if there was an agreement, I’d expect zoning laws to override it. Obviously IANAL, but this doesn’t make a lot of sense and it seemed like it should be a solved problem by now.
      - woodruffw 2y ago
        You're asking why there's a difference between civil and criminal law. The answer is that some things are disputes between people, and other things are codified as crimes. Kidnapping someone is a codified crime; having a dispute over a contract (including a lease or other document allowing occupancy) isn't. It could be made into a crime via legislation, but I think my other comment puts forward a decent argument for why doing so would be pretty bad for our civil liberties. (The underlying "why" here is that calling the police for a theft or a kidnapping results in a criminal accusation, while just having a dispute over rightful ownership or occupancy is not itself criminal.)
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        How can they be competent to assess car ownership but not homeownership?
tshaddox 2y ago
Isn’t nearly all personal property the result of private dealings between private individuals? We seem to be capable of, for instance, using force to prevent a bank robbery or recover money stolen in a bank robbery.
MaxBarraclough 2y ago
If you misbehave in a nightclub you get dragged out of the property by bouncers, i.e. private security. Do squatters have legal protections that clubbers don't?

woodruffw 2y ago

To take this explanation a step further: the intuition that someone should have is that the police can't meaningfully do anything here, since they're not equipped (much less competent) to evaluate private agreements without an independent finding of fact from a court. Generalizing the GP's desired outcome here would be a civil liberties nightmare: the police would either need to be informed of every private deal I make (no thanks), or would be empowered to determine on the spot whether I'm "rightfully" living where I say I do. Most people would rather have a society with occasional squatters and winding legal decisions than one where the police can snoop your lease agreement or unilaterally kick you out of your house in the middle of the night.

tshaddox 2y ago
What’s so special about rent here that makes it so difficult for police to evaluate? Surely rent is not particularly confounding compared to, say, theft or kidnapping.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  Rent is determined by a private contract, like GP said. It doesn’t even have to be a formal contract in most countries. It’s essentially a civil concern and not a criminal one, unlike theft or kidnapping.
  - al_borland 2y ago
    Couldn’t this logic then be extended to anything? People could steal anything with impunity. The police can’t prove I didn’t have an informal agreement to be the sole operator of your car, for example. For kidnapping, how can they prove I’m not just a baby sitter? If we are going to take people at their word, why would buildings be put in a different class than people or things? I get not wanting people with a legitimate claim to a building to be kicked out, but in the case of a building like this, wouldn’t zoning issue prevent it from being used as housing? Even if there was an agreement, I’d expect zoning laws to override it. Obviously IANAL, but this doesn’t make a lot of sense and it seemed like it should be a solved problem by now.
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      You're asking why there's a difference between civil and criminal law. The answer is that some things are disputes between people, and other things are codified as crimes. Kidnapping someone is a codified crime; having a dispute over a contract (including a lease or other document allowing occupancy) isn't. It could be made into a crime via legislation, but I think my other comment puts forward a decent argument for why doing so would be pretty bad for our civil liberties. (The underlying "why" here is that calling the police for a theft or a kidnapping results in a criminal accusation, while just having a dispute over rightful ownership or occupancy is not itself criminal.)
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        How can they be competent to assess car ownership but not homeownership?

tshaddox 2y ago

Isn’t nearly all personal property the result of private dealings between private individuals? We seem to be capable of, for instance, using force to prevent a bank robbery or recover money stolen in a bank robbery.

MaxBarraclough 2y ago

If you misbehave in a nightclub you get dragged out of the property by bouncers, i.e. private security. Do squatters have legal protections that clubbers don't?