9 ms·

Squatters fight against private property which is usually protected by law, it's very rare that it goes the other direction. A lot of squatters want to abolish

Squatters fight against private property which is usually protected by law, it's very rare that it goes the other direction. A lot of squatters want to abolish the possibility of someone having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live, considering that relation inherently oppressive and against a self-ownership of the individual.

next_xibalba 2y ago
You make an interesting point, TotalCrackpot. These “activists” do seem to be captured by the strange illogic of a mind virus.
- TotalCrackpot 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - next_xibalba 2y ago
    Well, let's play it out. A squatter steals an owner's property while they're away on a Summer-long vacation. Later, the squatter spends some temporary time away from the property. During this time, another squatter comes along and steals the property from them. And so on. How does this not just lead to an unending string of lawlessness. Further, why would anyone invest in building and maintaining housing when their property can just be stolen from them without consequence? We'll be back to straw huts in no time. Claiming that renting housing is "oppressive" is absurd in the extreme. It is an arrangement of mutual benefit that is done voluntarily. It provides flexibility, mobility, and access that home ownership doesn't. In fact, the ability to invest in housing increases access to housing, not the other way around. No one is arguing that we should eliminate tenant protections against arbitrary eviction or unfair treatment. We should simply have sane protections for property ownership. There is no circumstances in which the theft of property is a smart or sane solution. > neo-fascist Your turn. How is pointing out that people have been seduced by a worldview that is neither fact based nor logical "neo-fascist".
    - Wytwwww 2y ago
      > on a Summer-long vacation. Clearly only the capitalist elite can afford such things so you deserve to be stripped of your private property.
    - diggan 2y ago
      > A squatter steals an owner's property while they're away on a Summer-long vacation Realistically, if this would happen in real life (which isn't very common, compared to proper "occupations", which this is not), the police would kick them out quickly, as it's the owner's primary resident. No one is arguing for squatters right for other's primary residence. The division comes when you start talking about properties that are bought/owned for the sole purpose of speculation.
      - horns4lyfe 2y ago
        There’s someone in this thread arguing exactly for squatters right for another’s primary residence, barring their ability to organize some kind self defense. Didn’t sound great
        diggan 2y ago
        As always, there are extremists on both sides, that's no lie. Generally, most people aren't so extreme as to say private ownership shouldn't exist at all. At least from most of the people I interact with here in Barcelona. Besides what people think is right/wrong, the police does help you (quickly) to throw out people that try to invade your residence that you actively live in.
        TotalCrackpot 2y ago
        Calling people you disagree with extremists is just an insult and it's not nice. It's rude. There is nothing extremists about fighting for a world where no one is oppressed and everyone can develop to the heights of one's potential.
        2y ago
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    > A lot of squatters want to abolish the possibility of someone having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live That's exactly how you end up with no new or maintained housing, utilities and other services. How do you imagine system like that working besides a totalitarian government directly taking over all private property and rationing housing? (I assure the housing situation in Spain is not even remotely as bad as it was in the USSR). > don't have a logical counter-argument. Trying to form logical arguments that refute completely absurd and irrational ones is not particularly productive...
    - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
      Anarchist Catalonia had this type of property norm for about 2 years during Spanish Civil War and it indeed had an economic growth. >Trying to form logical arguments that refute completely absurd and irrational ones is not particularly productive... It's not, but my arguments are not absurd and irrational, they are rational.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Refusing to pay for a place to live is simply theft and entitlement. They expect people to build and maintain homes for them while doing nothing in return. If you abolish property rights, your two options are state slavery or anarchy where the strong take whatever they can. These misguided ideologies can only live parasitic ally on the fringe of a otherwise functional society. If they got their way, the society would be destroyed.
- TotalCrackpot 2y ago
  For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there. How is the current system not strong taking whatever they can? Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival. It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation, you may check Zapatistas, they are rebels that created a stateless society of 300 000 in Chiapas, Mexico without private property with structure that is based on decentralized, horizontal, federated institutions. Anarchism is not a misguided ideology, it's a product of highest levels of freethought that inspired many people to fight for liberation from oppression and for a world where every human can develop the the heights of one's potential.
  - ensignavenger 2y ago
    For most of human history, people fought over the right for members of their group to put up a hut or yurt on a piece of land. And/Or some other, more powerful group would come and take whatever they wanted, including sex and slaves, from other, weaker groups of humans.
    - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
      Yeah, so indeed it's important to organize self-defense groups that can help you not get hurt or enslaved.
      - 2y ago
AlexandrB 2y ago
> Squatters fight against private property Do they actually? Would they allow the previous homeowner to come live with them? Usually they seem intent on kicking/keeping the previous homeowner out, which is enforcement of their own property rights.
roncesvalles 2y ago
Then they should squat on an empty clearing in the forest and build a house themselves.

next_xibalba 2y ago

You make an interesting point, TotalCrackpot. These “activists” do seem to be captured by the strange illogic of a mind virus.

TotalCrackpot 2y ago
[flagged]
- next_xibalba 2y ago
  Well, let's play it out. A squatter steals an owner's property while they're away on a Summer-long vacation. Later, the squatter spends some temporary time away from the property. During this time, another squatter comes along and steals the property from them. And so on. How does this not just lead to an unending string of lawlessness. Further, why would anyone invest in building and maintaining housing when their property can just be stolen from them without consequence? We'll be back to straw huts in no time. Claiming that renting housing is "oppressive" is absurd in the extreme. It is an arrangement of mutual benefit that is done voluntarily. It provides flexibility, mobility, and access that home ownership doesn't. In fact, the ability to invest in housing increases access to housing, not the other way around. No one is arguing that we should eliminate tenant protections against arbitrary eviction or unfair treatment. We should simply have sane protections for property ownership. There is no circumstances in which the theft of property is a smart or sane solution. > neo-fascist Your turn. How is pointing out that people have been seduced by a worldview that is neither fact based nor logical "neo-fascist".
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    > on a Summer-long vacation. Clearly only the capitalist elite can afford such things so you deserve to be stripped of your private property.
  - diggan 2y ago
    > A squatter steals an owner's property while they're away on a Summer-long vacation Realistically, if this would happen in real life (which isn't very common, compared to proper "occupations", which this is not), the police would kick them out quickly, as it's the owner's primary resident. No one is arguing for squatters right for other's primary residence. The division comes when you start talking about properties that are bought/owned for the sole purpose of speculation.
    - horns4lyfe 2y ago
      There’s someone in this thread arguing exactly for squatters right for another’s primary residence, barring their ability to organize some kind self defense. Didn’t sound great
      - diggan 2y ago
        As always, there are extremists on both sides, that's no lie. Generally, most people aren't so extreme as to say private ownership shouldn't exist at all. At least from most of the people I interact with here in Barcelona. Besides what people think is right/wrong, the police does help you (quickly) to throw out people that try to invade your residence that you actively live in.
        TotalCrackpot 2y ago
        Calling people you disagree with extremists is just an insult and it's not nice. It's rude. There is nothing extremists about fighting for a world where no one is oppressed and everyone can develop to the heights of one's potential.
        2y ago
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  > A lot of squatters want to abolish the possibility of someone having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live That's exactly how you end up with no new or maintained housing, utilities and other services. How do you imagine system like that working besides a totalitarian government directly taking over all private property and rationing housing? (I assure the housing situation in Spain is not even remotely as bad as it was in the USSR). > don't have a logical counter-argument. Trying to form logical arguments that refute completely absurd and irrational ones is not particularly productive...
  - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
    Anarchist Catalonia had this type of property norm for about 2 years during Spanish Civil War and it indeed had an economic growth. >Trying to form logical arguments that refute completely absurd and irrational ones is not particularly productive... It's not, but my arguments are not absurd and irrational, they are rational.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Refusing to pay for a place to live is simply theft and entitlement. They expect people to build and maintain homes for them while doing nothing in return. If you abolish property rights, your two options are state slavery or anarchy where the strong take whatever they can. These misguided ideologies can only live parasitic ally on the fringe of a otherwise functional society. If they got their way, the society would be destroyed.

TotalCrackpot 2y ago
For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there. How is the current system not strong taking whatever they can? Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival. It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation, you may check Zapatistas, they are rebels that created a stateless society of 300 000 in Chiapas, Mexico without private property with structure that is based on decentralized, horizontal, federated institutions. Anarchism is not a misguided ideology, it's a product of highest levels of freethought that inspired many people to fight for liberation from oppression and for a world where every human can develop the the heights of one's potential.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  For most of human history, people fought over the right for members of their group to put up a hut or yurt on a piece of land. And/Or some other, more powerful group would come and take whatever they wanted, including sex and slaves, from other, weaker groups of humans.
  - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
    Yeah, so indeed it's important to organize self-defense groups that can help you not get hurt or enslaved.
    - 2y ago

AlexandrB 2y ago

> Squatters fight against private property Do they actually? Would they allow the previous homeowner to come live with them? Usually they seem intent on kicking/keeping the previous homeowner out, which is enforcement of their own property rights.

roncesvalles 2y ago

Then they should squat on an empty clearing in the forest and build a house themselves.