4 ms·

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 t

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.
      - runarberg 13y ago
        Funny you should say that since "property is theft!" is one of the earliest slogan in the anarchist literature and is often quoted by squatters advocates :-) What you have to consider, though, is the fact that not all property is equal. There is a difference between owning a toothbrush, and owning slaves. Equalling all property would be identifying a policeman's action of emancipating a prostitute from her pimp as theft of property, which of course is nonsense. To give an example. Imagine you go to a country where slavery is legal, disgusted by their treatment you join some activists that emancipates slaves. Now you are stealing the slaveholders property and therefor committing a crime. Are you going to hold that crime at par with stealing someones money, or someones bicycle? Now this is an extreme example, but a few hundred years ago it wouldn't be so far out, and slave emancipators, now considered heroes, were then considered criminals? Same may hold a few hundred years from now in case of land. Land hording is criminal, it keeps other people of it. It could and should be used for the great of the community. Squatting a few hundred years from now may be looked at as land emancipation, even though now it is as criminal as stealing a bike.
        blueskin_ 13y ago
        >Funny you should say that since "property is theft!" is one of the earliest slogan in the anarchist literature and is often quoted by squatters advocates :-) As said by massive hypocrites from within their safe homes. Most first world anarchists would likely be murdered and robbed within days if there was actual anarchy, and no police to get help from then. >slaves Property doesn't have free will.
        runarberg 13y ago
        Since when was 'free will' a criteria for property?? So you couldn't own a dog, you couldn't own farm animals? If that is not a fair comparison (since farm animals arguably don't have free will), then who is to say that slaves do?
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  ...except for all their possessions that were in the property that were stolen / smashed up / ruined / sold for crack. Not to mention their money and time in getting the squatters evicted, which usually involves courts, the hiring of security people, etc, followed by the cost of repairing the damage they did to the property.
  - runarberg 13y ago
    again. Squatting != theft/vandalism. plus I have no empathy towards folks that have property they don't use, and then actively engage in preventing others from using it, and then finally complain about how difficult it is to prevent other people to use their property they don't use in the first place.

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.
    - runarberg 13y ago
      Funny you should say that since "property is theft!" is one of the earliest slogan in the anarchist literature and is often quoted by squatters advocates :-) What you have to consider, though, is the fact that not all property is equal. There is a difference between owning a toothbrush, and owning slaves. Equalling all property would be identifying a policeman's action of emancipating a prostitute from her pimp as theft of property, which of course is nonsense. To give an example. Imagine you go to a country where slavery is legal, disgusted by their treatment you join some activists that emancipates slaves. Now you are stealing the slaveholders property and therefor committing a crime. Are you going to hold that crime at par with stealing someones money, or someones bicycle? Now this is an extreme example, but a few hundred years ago it wouldn't be so far out, and slave emancipators, now considered heroes, were then considered criminals? Same may hold a few hundred years from now in case of land. Land hording is criminal, it keeps other people of it. It could and should be used for the great of the community. Squatting a few hundred years from now may be looked at as land emancipation, even though now it is as criminal as stealing a bike.
      - blueskin_ 13y ago
        >Funny you should say that since "property is theft!" is one of the earliest slogan in the anarchist literature and is often quoted by squatters advocates :-) As said by massive hypocrites from within their safe homes. Most first world anarchists would likely be murdered and robbed within days if there was actual anarchy, and no police to get help from then. >slaves Property doesn't have free will.
        runarberg 13y ago
        Since when was 'free will' a criteria for property?? So you couldn't own a dog, you couldn't own farm animals? If that is not a fair comparison (since farm animals arguably don't have free will), then who is to say that slaves do?
blueskin_ 13y ago
...except for all their possessions that were in the property that were stolen / smashed up / ruined / sold for crack. Not to mention their money and time in getting the squatters evicted, which usually involves courts, the hiring of security people, etc, followed by the cost of repairing the damage they did to the property.
- runarberg 13y ago
  again. Squatting != theft/vandalism. plus I have no empathy towards folks that have property they don't use, and then actively engage in preventing others from using it, and then finally complain about how difficult it is to prevent other people to use their property they don't use in the first place.