• Squatter attempts to sell house he doesn't own.
    79 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38451068] Because the costs of building them outweigh the benefits for society. [/QUOTE] The cost of building the mansions rests solely on the person building them, society doesn't have to benefit, as they incur no costs. [editline]14th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JustExtreme;38451087]So you pay for the government/group of armed mercenaries to protect that privilege by force? Use based property rights seem more sensible to me - if you don't use something, why should you be able to hoard it and keep it from others? Property is theft :P[/QUOTE] If space was a huge issue, you'd be right, but there's plenty of land to go around, so its not exactly hoarding it.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38451095]The cost of building the mansions rests solely on the person building them, society doesn't have to benefit, as they incur no costs.[/QUOTE] Except they would be more wisely used if the other 5 mansions were actually used. [editline]14th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ultra_bright;38451037]You pay for the privilege of doing whatever the fuck you want to do with your property including letting it sit there and go to waste. That's how ownership works. It's yours to do with whatever you so please and nobody has the right to tell you otherwise.[/QUOTE] And what grants you this right?
The fact that the government will use force to enforce it, that's what grants it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38450929]Except the law that allows you to claim land after 12 years is also authorized by parliament.[/QUOTE] Indeed, Adverse Possession is a legal way to aquire property - but that doesn't make it morally right. Furthermore, the person would still be trespassing. "A disseisor will be committing a civil trespass on the property he has taken and the owner of the property could cause him to be evicted by an action in trespass" [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38450929]That's because it literally is.[/QUOTE] Then please do actually explain why instead of bullshitting me. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38450929]Except it's not very economically wise to have 5 mansions sitting doing nothing.[/QUOTE] Maybe not, but that isn't the concern of anyone other than the owner.
[QUOTE=David29;38451453]Indeed, Adverse Possession is a legal way to aquire property - but that doesn't make it morally right. Furthermore, the person would still be trespassing.[/QUOTE] Morally right? The law is created by legislators elected by the will of the majority of the population, to make decisions on their behalf that will benefit society as a whole. [QUOTE=David29;38451453]Then please do actually explain why instead of bullshitting me.[/QUOTE] Because death penalty has fuck all to do with the discussion. [QUOTE=David29;38451453]Maybe not, but that isn't the concern of anyone other than the owner.[/QUOTE] Yes it is. If they have no use for those resources, then we should redistribute them amongst society to help the disadvantaged.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38451868]Morally right? The law is created by legislators elected by the will of the majority of the population, to make decisions on their behalf that will benefit society as a whole.[/QUOTE] Aside from the fact that it is still illegal (note the point I made about trespassing), if you agree the law has presedence over morals, then you agree that property can not be just taken for the greater good. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38451868]Because death penalty has fuck all to do with the discussion.[/QUOTE] Ah, so your not bullshitting me - you just can't/wont read my posts. I used it as a comparison and even specifically explained why it can be used that way. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38451868]Yes it is. If they have no use for those resources, then we should redistribute them amongst society to help the disadvantaged.[/QUOTE] You cannot just take something that doesn't belong to you because you can think of a better way to utilise it. You are literally advocating theft/trespassing.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;38449109]I think that's dumb. If I'm a billionaire and I buy 6 mansions some loser shouldn't be able to take over one of them if I'm not using the place. Same thing goes for your average joe and his cottage place. [editline]14th November 2012[/editline] You have to understand that people in the U.K are strange and have strange laws. Their government treat the citizens like children from what I've heard.[/QUOTE] Thanks for not only assuming that I'm not British but for being an asshole simultaneously.
[QUOTE=David29;38452018]Aside from the fact that it is still illegal (note the point I made about trespassing), if you agree the law has presedence over morals, then you agree that property can not be just taken for the greater good.[/QUOTE] How the fuck is it illegal? It's in the fucking lawbooks that it's legal. [QUOTE=David29;38452018]Ah, so your not bullshitting me - you just can't/wont read my posts. I used it as a comparison and even specifically explained why it can be used that way.[/QUOTE] Besides the fact it was dumb to use as a comparison. [QUOTE=David29;38452018]You cannot just take something that doesn't belong to you because you can think of a better way to utilise it. You are literally advocating theft/trespassing.[/QUOTE] States have been doing this for thousands of years, why are you suddenly complaining now?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;38451037]You pay for the privilege of doing whatever the fuck you want to do with your property including letting it sit there and go to waste. That's how ownership works. It's yours to do with whatever you so please and nobody has the right to tell you otherwise.[/QUOTE] Nonetheless, I agree with you.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38433380]Except property left unattended by their owners for long periods of time must have little economic value if they aren't doing anything with it, so whats the problem if you let somebody else try using it for productive purposes?[/QUOTE] So let's say you go on a business trip for a year, should I be allowed to steal your car, and take over your house while you're gone?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38452224]How the fuck is it illegal? It's in the fucking lawbooks that it's legal. Besides the fact it was dumb to use as a comparison. [B]States have been doing this for thousands of years, why are you suddenly complaining now?[/B][/QUOTE] The world isn't the same as it was thousands of years ago. If you own something you should be able to do whatever you want with it. If you want to let people live on your premises then go ahead. If you don't...well, you should be able to enforce that. If I want to leave the property untouched for years on end then I should have every right to do so. It only makes sense.
[QUOTE=Crimor;38452331]So let's say you go on a business trip for a year, should I be allowed to steal your car, and take over your house while you're gone?[/QUOTE] Have you even read the thread? It's 12 years minimum, and the owner must not object. [editline]14th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JJ Webby;38452362] If I want to leave the property untouched for years on end then I should have every right to do so. [b]It only makes sense.[/b][/QUOTE] Why?
oh no my precious p[URL="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/bookshelf.png"]roperty rights!!!!!!!!!![/URL]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38452224]How the fuck is it illegal? It's in the fucking lawbooks that it's legal.[/QUOTE] Christ, are you so thick that you don't know what trespassing is? "[b]Trespass to land is a common law tort[/b] that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally (or in Australia negligently) enters the land of another without a lawful excuse. Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered upon may sue even if no actual harm is done." And just in case you don't know what 'tort' is (admittedly, I didn't): "A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong." In simple terms, just for you, it's [b]illegal[/b]. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38452224]Besides the fact it was dumb to use as a comparison.[/QUOTE] You keep calling it dumb/retarded/stupid/whatever - but you [b]still[/b] have yet to explain why. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38452224]States have been doing this for thousands of years, why are you suddenly complaining now?[/QUOTE] True there was a time when rulers could just take land one a whim - but that was when things were very different and there was fuck-all the populace could do about it. In modern times, if land is taken by the state it is done legally.
[QUOTE=David29;38452645]Christ, are you so thick that you don't know what trespassing is?[/QUOTE] You aren't getting my fucking point. In England and Wales, it is legal for somebody who has occupied a piece of land continuously for 12 years to become the legal owner, provided they let the local authorities know, and the owner doesn't object. It's [b]LEGAL[/b] here. If a law is unpopular, people will pressure parliament to repeal legislation. The law remains by consent of the people. How hard is this to understand?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38452886]You aren't getting my fucking point. In England and Wales, it is legal for somebody who has occupied a piece of land continuously for 12 years to become the legal owner, provided they let the local authorities know, and the owner doesn't object. It's [b]LEGAL[/b] here. If a law is unpopular, people will pressure parliament to repeal legislation. The law remains by consent of the people. How hard is this to understand?[/QUOTE] Fine, but I don't think I stated anywhere that that wasn't the case. I was arguing that in doing so you are breaking the law by other means. The fact is, someone occupying your house within that 12 year period is an illegal act. Besides, that law is actually relatively easy to get around because the years can be reset by giving temporary consent to the squatter(s).
[QUOTE=David29;38453530]Fine, but I don't think I stated anywhere that that wasn't the case. I was arguing that in doing so you are breaking the law by other means. The fact is, someone occupying your house within that 12 year period is an illegal act.[/QUOTE] Sure is. The owner still needs to report it to the local authorities however. If they don't do that for 12 years, you can probably tell they won't be reporting it ever.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38455029]Sure is. The owner still needs to report it to the local authorities however. If they don't do that for 12 years, you can probably tell they won't be reporting it ever.[/QUOTE] I am glad to see that for once we are able to reach a point of agreement.
[QUOTE=David29;38455513]I am glad to see that for once we are able to reach a point of agreement.[/QUOTE] It's when you reach this stage you realize that for the vast majority of people, this will never happen, with this law existing more or less to make sure that land for which the owner cannot be found is used.
This is leading to one conclusion: Blowing up the universe is the only solution to this problem(well,it's a solution to every problem)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.