5 ms·

> Why are more than 10M homes vacant in India? So why? BBC basically answers with the following: because some people earn more money this way. Tell me somethin

by cies 11y ago

> Why are more than 10M homes vacant in India? So why? BBC basically answers with the following: because some people earn more money this way. Tell me something new BBC. Let me posit another reason: because squatting these empty houses is not allowed. If squatting these long-term empty places was allowed they would be: 1. sold/rented at a more fair market price, 2. squatted (in which case they are also not empty anymore).

golergka 11y ago
Well, let's just throw out the whole private property concept while we're at it, why not?
- techsupporter 11y ago
  That's not what the parent was proposing and I think you know it, choosing instead to go to an illogical extreme for some reason. Squatting and a more efficient use of undesired or inefficiently-used property is not incompatible with private property ownership.
  - qengho 11y ago
    It is incompatible. Just because a property is vacant doesn't mean it is "undesired" or "inefficiently-used". As long as governments continue to rob their citizens via taxes, people will do their best to not be robbed, resulting in "black money" (which is actually "white money" since none of it went to fund wars and murderous statist schemes, as opposed to the "red money" which is tax paid and so did help fund wars and statist aggression against peaceful citizens). This "white money" will then find a place to be invested where it receives some ROI, unlike the banks and bonds and stocks that have been completely destroyed by government meddling in the economy. That is real estate or precious metals and that's where the "white money" will go. The entire "problem" (if it is one at all) is created by statist violation of property rights through taxation, in the first place. Further statist property rights violations will only distort things even further. Let's say you introduce squatting "rights". Well now you know what happens? Nobody's buying real estate in your country any more. All the "white money" flows to alternate investments and real estate in other countries that don't have squatting "rights". It's basic human action. People don't want to be enslaved and robbed from. And they will do everything in their power to avoid it.
- netcan 11y ago
  Some foundational theories of private property (very influential in the British Empire and the US) would have had a hard time dealing with the concept of vacant homes as legitimate property. Occupying or putting property to productive use is part of some definitions of property. They might class perpetually vacant properties as abandoned and therefore returned to the common. When New world land was doled out in square mile allotments (The US, Australia..), improving the land was a prerequisite to your claim. This is often thought of historically as a deal: 'you improve this land and we'll give it to you.' But the justifications at the time was more philosophical: you improve this land and you own it, by definition.'
  - nine_k 11y ago
    The land was granted to new settlers in exchange for promist to cultivate it. I suppose that the builders did not build their houses in exchange for anything beside money, and have no additional limiting clauses, and are free to do with their buildings what they will. If they do, though, it's high time to check if these additional clauses are honored.
    - netcan 11y ago
      I think you are putting your finger on a relevant subtlety. When we look back at those policies now we think of it s a deal, quid quo pro. I think it probably did function that way at the time too. But in terms of the philosophical argument underpinning the policy, its was based on the idea that by applying your labour you take appropriate property from the common, or you "make" property or whatnot. This was based in ideas trying to explain what property is, why one person was rights to it and another doesn't. A wild forest is not property. A farm is. Hence labour, habitation, productive use etc. make something property. It's the kind of philosophy that gets very theological, with precise definitions and arguments between theorists that seem very arcane an pointless in retrospect. I'm not promoting the theory. It just seemed relevant in the context of a liberal/libertarian quip. These ideas are foundational to ideas of private property, later economic freedom etc. It's part of the history of ideas related to right leaning politics today. In practice, I'm not sue if this is workable. But if it is, I don't think an abstract sanctity of private property is necessarily a barrier. That unused property makes fro a weaker claim is justifiable by common sensibilities, right or left wing philosophy.
- jaredklewis 11y ago
  Is squatting totally incompatible with property rights? Until several years ago, I believe the Netherlands had quite strong squatting rights in addition to basic property rights. Property rights in most countries are mitigated by a variety of competing communal rights such as eminent domain, zoning, and environmental laws. I think squatting rights could potentially protect communal rights in a similar way.
  - nine_k 11y ago
    Squatting definitely limits your property rights. Imagine that if your backpack is vacant for some time, and someone put tacitly someting into it, you'd be legally obliged to carry it around. I suspect that squatting rights only affect obviously neglected property. I suppose the empty houses and apartments are reasonably guarded and are not as neglected as a closed and half-dismantled building. Also, squatting does damage the property, hopefully in minor ways. Imagine that your empty backpack was loaded with pizza slices: totally benign, but you'll have to clean the backpack thoroughly.
  - qengho 11y ago
    Yes squatting is absolutely incompatible with property rights. As are eminent domain and zoning.
- cies 11y ago
  > Well, let's just throw out the whole private property concept while we're at it, why not? Why not? Argument "scope creep" :) As others pointed out, squatting can be used to keep private property owners (especially of such basic necessities like housing), from hording/speculating.
- mikerichards 11y ago
  Only in 2015 neo-marxist Hacker News you're downvoted to obvlivion for defending private property.
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    It's not Marxist to suggest that property rights should not be absolute.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - qengho 11y ago
      It is.
  - mturmon 11y ago
    I prefer to think of it as a pivot from "Marxism" branding to "disruption of incumbent rent-seekers".
kang 11y ago
These homes have been built in areas with large population and there are severe slum locations nearby. The corruption is huge on these lands. In some areas even national park and bird sanctuaries have been illegally constructed upon and then the government was bribed.

by cies 11y ago

golergka 11y ago

Well, let's just throw out the whole private property concept while we're at it, why not?

techsupporter 11y ago
That's not what the parent was proposing and I think you know it, choosing instead to go to an illogical extreme for some reason. Squatting and a more efficient use of undesired or inefficiently-used property is not incompatible with private property ownership.
- qengho 11y ago
  It is incompatible. Just because a property is vacant doesn't mean it is "undesired" or "inefficiently-used". As long as governments continue to rob their citizens via taxes, people will do their best to not be robbed, resulting in "black money" (which is actually "white money" since none of it went to fund wars and murderous statist schemes, as opposed to the "red money" which is tax paid and so did help fund wars and statist aggression against peaceful citizens). This "white money" will then find a place to be invested where it receives some ROI, unlike the banks and bonds and stocks that have been completely destroyed by government meddling in the economy. That is real estate or precious metals and that's where the "white money" will go. The entire "problem" (if it is one at all) is created by statist violation of property rights through taxation, in the first place. Further statist property rights violations will only distort things even further. Let's say you introduce squatting "rights". Well now you know what happens? Nobody's buying real estate in your country any more. All the "white money" flows to alternate investments and real estate in other countries that don't have squatting "rights". It's basic human action. People don't want to be enslaved and robbed from. And they will do everything in their power to avoid it.
netcan 11y ago
Some foundational theories of private property (very influential in the British Empire and the US) would have had a hard time dealing with the concept of vacant homes as legitimate property. Occupying or putting property to productive use is part of some definitions of property. They might class perpetually vacant properties as abandoned and therefore returned to the common. When New world land was doled out in square mile allotments (The US, Australia..), improving the land was a prerequisite to your claim. This is often thought of historically as a deal: 'you improve this land and we'll give it to you.' But the justifications at the time was more philosophical: you improve this land and you own it, by definition.'
- nine_k 11y ago
  The land was granted to new settlers in exchange for promist to cultivate it. I suppose that the builders did not build their houses in exchange for anything beside money, and have no additional limiting clauses, and are free to do with their buildings what they will. If they do, though, it's high time to check if these additional clauses are honored.
  - netcan 11y ago
    I think you are putting your finger on a relevant subtlety. When we look back at those policies now we think of it s a deal, quid quo pro. I think it probably did function that way at the time too. But in terms of the philosophical argument underpinning the policy, its was based on the idea that by applying your labour you take appropriate property from the common, or you "make" property or whatnot. This was based in ideas trying to explain what property is, why one person was rights to it and another doesn't. A wild forest is not property. A farm is. Hence labour, habitation, productive use etc. make something property. It's the kind of philosophy that gets very theological, with precise definitions and arguments between theorists that seem very arcane an pointless in retrospect. I'm not promoting the theory. It just seemed relevant in the context of a liberal/libertarian quip. These ideas are foundational to ideas of private property, later economic freedom etc. It's part of the history of ideas related to right leaning politics today. In practice, I'm not sue if this is workable. But if it is, I don't think an abstract sanctity of private property is necessarily a barrier. That unused property makes fro a weaker claim is justifiable by common sensibilities, right or left wing philosophy.
jaredklewis 11y ago
Is squatting totally incompatible with property rights? Until several years ago, I believe the Netherlands had quite strong squatting rights in addition to basic property rights. Property rights in most countries are mitigated by a variety of competing communal rights such as eminent domain, zoning, and environmental laws. I think squatting rights could potentially protect communal rights in a similar way.
- nine_k 11y ago
  Squatting definitely limits your property rights. Imagine that if your backpack is vacant for some time, and someone put tacitly someting into it, you'd be legally obliged to carry it around. I suspect that squatting rights only affect obviously neglected property. I suppose the empty houses and apartments are reasonably guarded and are not as neglected as a closed and half-dismantled building. Also, squatting does damage the property, hopefully in minor ways. Imagine that your empty backpack was loaded with pizza slices: totally benign, but you'll have to clean the backpack thoroughly.
- qengho 11y ago
  Yes squatting is absolutely incompatible with property rights. As are eminent domain and zoning.
cies 11y ago
> Well, let's just throw out the whole private property concept while we're at it, why not? Why not? Argument "scope creep" :) As others pointed out, squatting can be used to keep private property owners (especially of such basic necessities like housing), from hording/speculating.
mikerichards 11y ago
Only in 2015 neo-marxist Hacker News you're downvoted to obvlivion for defending private property.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  It's not Marxist to suggest that property rights should not be absolute.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - qengho 11y ago
    It is.
- mturmon 11y ago
  I prefer to think of it as a pivot from "Marxism" branding to "disruption of incumbent rent-seekers".

kang 11y ago

These homes have been built in areas with large population and there are severe slum locations nearby. The corruption is huge on these lands. In some areas even national park and bird sanctuaries have been illegally constructed upon and then the government was bribed.