5 ms·

> It's great that someone is finally disrupting the squatting market. You mean _anti_-squatting market? These kind of companies have thrived in Europe over th

• blueskin_ 13y ago
  Squatters' rights? What's next, muggers' rights? I'm glad to see a turn back from punishing the victims of crime to punishing the perpetrators. Perhaps now the government can do something about prosecutions of people for attacking burglars in their own home, another longstanding victim-punishing law.
  • runarberg 13y ago
    Mugging is an act of violence. It violates the victims freedom of action and causes great damage. Squatting is a non-violent act. It provides shelter to someone who didn't have it before. The owner of the shelter can be unaware of the fact that his property is being used for several months, emphasizing the lack of damage by the act. Evicting a squatter, on the other hand, causes damage to the victim in fact, it removes a shelter from someone. So mugging and squatting are two very different acts
    • blueskin_ 13y ago
      Not always though. There are cases where people have gone on holiday and had their homes invaded and damaged, their possessions stolen (and often sold for drugs), and have been stuck with long and costly legal battles to regain what is rightfully theirs. Squatting violates the victims' freedom of property. If insulting someone verbally can be referred to as violent, so should stealing their home and possessions. I'm less concerned with invasion of business properties - while it should still be illegal, there is less loss to a business, who also typically have the legal staff and expertise as well as funds to get rid of them more swiftly and easily.
      • tfgg 13y ago
        "had their homes invaded and damaged, their possessions stolen (and often sold for drugs)" Sounds like burglary and criminal damage, not squatting, is the issue here. The problem is that those are hard to prove and it's easier just to have a catch-all crime for squatting.
      • runarberg 13y ago
        May I note that theft, invasion of privacy, and vandalism are all violent crimes that causes harm to the victim[1]. Those crimes can follow almost any human acts, such as partying (party people mug), alcohol consumption (drunk people steal), protests (politically opposing people vandalize), but you wouldn't say those things are equal, you would look at these marginal cases as a subset and to be treated as separate acts. In short. Squatting is sometimes, but rarely followed with more violent and damaging crimes. But squatting in it self are not those crimes. --- [1] with exception, of course, in the case of vandalism, if no the "owner" is oblivious of its value, or when vandalism acts to prevent further vandalism, like the destruction of military tools and weapons.
    • mseebach 13y ago
      Squatting violates the victims freedom of action and causes great damage. Squatting is non violent, so it's more comparable to burglary than mugging, not that that moves is far up the scale. Defences for squatting typically hinges on arguments around that the squatters need the building more than the landlord who leaves it empty. As a moral argument, that would carry more weight if squatters were known to leave when the landlord was putting the building to productive use, but they don't. So on that angle, squatting is mere theft, too, but of a much higher value item than any regular burglar or mugger could ever hope to make off with.
      • runarberg 13y ago
        No. In case of burglary, the victim looses its possession. In the case of squatting, the possession is still theirs. It is only the status of the property that changes from "vacant" to "in use". Note that the change of status is temporary and reversible (as opposed to burglary).
        • marrs 13y ago
          Keen to have an argument today? Someone I know had to move in with his family because squatters effectively made him homeless. It took months to get them out. It was a very stressful time for him. They also stole all his property before they left.
          • runarberg 13y ago
            again squatting != theft. Those are sepperate issues. Just because there are evil squatters out there, it doesn't make squatting evil.
            • blueskin_ 13y ago
              Property theft is theft. Intention doesn't come into theft. "I stole his car but only for a day" doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed; neither does it for houses or offices.
• yetanotherphd 13y ago
  No I meant the squatting market, although I was using the term market ironically. The existence of the "right" to squat is a historical accident, and this legal right should be eliminated entirely.