Squatters leave house once occupied by soverign citizen; Owner of house afraid of repair costs
315 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342181]lol put simply rv's are not the only form of personal property you can live in.[/QUOTE]
what the fuck other house is movable property? Labor camps? Jet liners? Houseboats?
[QUOTE=Kyle902;42342185]what the fuck other house is movable property? Labor camps? Jet liners? Houseboats?[/QUOTE]
it doesn't need to be mobile
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
or movable at all.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42342182][url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuance?s=t]noun, plural nu·anc·es [noo-ahn-siz, nyoo-, noo-ahn-siz, nyoo-; French ny-ahns] Show IPA .
1.
a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc.
2.
a very slight difference or variation in color or tone.[/url][/QUOTE]
i am well aware of the definition of nuance. I don't exactly know what he was trying to say by saying that personal property is a bit more subtle.
like did you literally ignore my last few posts?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342190]it doesn't need to be mobile
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
or movable at all.[/QUOTE]
the same page you linked said that land or buildings cant be personal property.
[editline]28th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342196]like did you literally ignore my last few posts?[/QUOTE]
Yes I saw such beautiful arguments like
[quote]well yea if you were unable to read or form complete thoughts in your head i guess you could ramble about it or something.[/quote]
or
[quote]so? kyle was saying something idiotic about rv's or some shit i was just correcting him and saying that our definition is a bit more nuanced. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42341400]Even if humans were naturally altruistic, Communist and Anarchist societies wouldn't work because they are logistically impossible.[/QUOTE]
literally anything that is based on the idea of "everyone JUST working together" is impossible.
Anarchy WILL work. It's a VERY good idea... as is communism... for SMALL groups. A small lone town that has inherently only itself would strive on it in my opinion. But lesser so in much larger groups.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42342206]literally anything that is based on the idea of "everyone JUST working together" is impossible.[/QUOTE]
It's a great idea and I have a good deal of sympathy toward such ideologies but in the end, I know that they're just not realistic sadly.
I think some forms of anarchy look great on paper, but I'd never would want to give them a shot in practice.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42342214]It's a great idea and I have a good deal of sympathy toward such ideologies but in the end, I know that they're just not realistic sadly.
I think some forms of anarchy look great on paper, but I'd never would want to give them a shot in practice.[/QUOTE]
Well, pretty much. They're very realistic... for small groups. One man ruling 1 small group is kind of bad, but is different with larger groups and more men having the same power.
I'd suggest a non-existent economy for a small group based around food for work. You work, you eat. Family and medical benefits when needed. Above roughly 25 people may be hard. 1000 can be possible. Anything more I'd really avoid it. This isn't Star Trek after all.
But of course if it was star trek and we did have a world were we dealt with sentient and allied alien species I would definitely go with a non economy/socialist and anarchist government. Other than that, please no.
But that's just me at least.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;42342202]the same page you linked said that land or buildings cant be personal property.
[editline]28th September 2013[/editline]
Yes I saw such beautiful arguments like
or[/QUOTE]
also the page that said that homes can be personal property.
oh wait you ignored that.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42342206]literally anything that is based on the idea of "everyone JUST working together" is impossible.[/QUOTE]
hominids worked together for millions of years before civilization. humans work together by nature, not by force.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342255]
hominids worked together for millions of years before civilization. humans work together by nature, not by force.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but in each of their own little familial groups and clans, not as a unified species as a whole.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42340795]So, like, rather than posting awful zingers and acting all high and mighty over the "morons" who don't know or give a shit about the definition of property, why not actually explain it roughly and actually help the discussion?[/QUOTE]
Sure. I didn't want to because I feel that yawmwen already kinda gave the blunt gist of it, but why not? It's a long read, so have some property discussion.
So the fuck is property in the first place? If we go back to the state of nature, where humanity exists without social contract, where we have complete liberty, then we have a system where humans act as beasts do- all for one, free-for-all, no control or constraint. We obviously don't exist in this state, but it's always a good theoretical to start from to demonstrate concepts at their base. A good example would be say an unoccupied piece of land. Let's say an island or something.
So some guys get off the boat on this island. The land is completely uninhabited, no natives, nothing. Since this is the state of nature, they come with no preconceived notions of law or property or rights. but, out of mutual interest they establish a settlement using the natural resources around them. They harvest, plant, log, fish, whatnot. Generally, their establishment is only planned in terms of mutual benefit. No one is quartering off land for specific individuals, just "this is your house, this is my house, this is the town hall, this is the market...". By all standards this is pretty close to primitive communism, and is what most colonies experience in America when they first landed. The resources are held in common. People are free to use the land as they see fit.
"Well now, wait, if they have houses and land they're using, that's property then, right?" Well, yes and no. It's not [I]private[/I] property, it's personal property or communal property. That is, it's property only in the sense that someone is using it. When it's used for personal use, actively, then it's in your possession. Actively used property. A house, a stove, a chair, a table. These are things that are [I]naturally[/I] property by virtue of its being manipulated immediately. At the same level, because no one owns the land, per se, but it is being worked, one could see it as personal property in the communal land. No one individual claims control of any or all of the land, but people still work it. Hence, because all the land is open to being used by anyone or everyone, it is communal property, and because it is then worked by individuals, it becomes personal property. It is by all standards an extension of the person.
Now, what about [I]private[/I] property? Private property is different, because of its private nature. Another word for private is exclusive, and in most cases this category of property means that everyone is excluded from using the property except for one person, or a group of people, or whoever "owns" the property. As we've seen, because no one truly owns any of the property on our island, to [I]exclude others from use of any given plot is now removing property from the common stake[/I]. Naturally, all property begins as unowned, or communal. To claim property as private is one thing, but for it to be private is another.
Why? Well, by the same standard that I could claim the entire land of Michigan as my own property, simply claiming land to be yours does nothing. On our island, if our islander John Locke we to claim 40 acres of our island for himself, and remove that from the common property, the only way he could possibly maintain that claim is if he could actually defend it. Whose to say that the others couldn't just begin to work that land like any other land? Locke can only maintain the private nature of his property if he uses force or coercion to keep others out.
Interesting enough, the state got started in part because groups of individuals who wished to take property from the common plot banded together and with force and coercion established rule of law whereby property is private. This system worked out for those who could enforce their claims. They could keep all on their property, more than what just they themselves produce. For instance, if another of our citizens comes on John Locke's land, and chops down a tree- well, because it was Locke's tree according to the enforcement of the exclusive nature of the property, then Locke can claim he is entitled to the lumber. Someone else worked to make that lumber, but because Locke owns the land, it's his now.
Now remember that the land is only owned by Locke because he can enforce it. In our state of nature, this basically means either establishing the exclusive status by violently forcing people from his property or taking from them what they forage from it. Alternatively, Locke could ally with his neighbor who also wishes to keep his property private and together they could enforce it. Keep this formula up, and expand it, next thing you know you have a state, enforcing the property claims of everybody using the power of the police force or military. This state becomes a country, which claims the same enforcement over all men in a region. And then countries vye for control of more property.
But where did it all start? That communal plot, that unclaimed land. And because property is now private, and valued and commoditized, it can be bought and traded. Before long, we have economies built on the buying and selling of what was the communal pool of resources. Naturally, no one owns any of it, but out of our own utilization of it it could be considered the personal property of individuals. This is no longer the case, because we have a state that enforces all private claims, and as such enforces also the concept of absentee ownership.
Absentee ownership comes hand in hand with private property, because property in this sense is not an extension of an individual but the enforced claims of that individual. He can go ahead and never set foot on that property, but because his claim over it is enforced by the state, then it's still "his", by no natural order but by the demand of the state. He can use it to build a factory, to bring in machines, to court people to use those machines to produce, and then because all of it met the standards and rules established by the state to fit "ownership", then he also gets claim on the produce, even though the only thing he really ever owned was what he himself could control within his arms reach. The rest was enforced by the state.
Imagine now that our industrialized island, in which capitalism is in full swing, that those who are working the machines which are not their own property, instead demand that this is their property now. Well, they would be in part right because by using those machines they are using them as an extension of their natural selves- like we would use our arms or tools, the machine acts as an extension or augment to their natural function. And what's more, the fact that it's them using it, in their area of enforcement, to make things also in their enforcement out of things in their enforcement, in the state of nature this would be a classic example of personal property. If this were still the state of nature, that worker could easily say "this is actually mine", and the property "owner" would be useless to do anything about it unless he was willing to forcibly come and pry the worker off the machine. But instead, the "owner" can call the police, who will come and apply their force to pry that worker off the machine, and enforce the exclusive status of that machine. The private ownership of the machine is in name only unless it can be enforced. And it can only be enforced by the standards and physical coercion of the society in which one exists. Hence, we can safely say that private property is a social construct, as opposed to the communal and personal property of our islander's ancestors.
Another example to punctuate the point: you borrow your friend your car. It is yours, legally, in name. It is your private property, and so long as you use it, then it is your personal property also. However, your friend is borrowing it. S/He takes it into the other state. Infact, s/he goes missing with it. It's your property in name, sure, but because no one can find him/her, and s/he's outside of your ability to enforce your claim, or your state's ability to enforce your claim, then simply put, your "ownership" of that car is absolutely meaningless, while your friend for all practical purposes holds your car as his/her personal property.
Which is exactly why someone can walk into a house and use it as their own, their own personal property, with total disregard of private holdings unless someone is capable of enforcing a claim. Absentee ownership is not really ownership at all unless it can be enforced as such. Does this mean that if someone comes in our houses and starts living in them, that our houses are now their property? No, because the houses are already our personal property, or extensions of ourselves, and to use force or coercion to prevent us from continuing to use them as such is equally harmful as the original theft of preventing someone from using the communal land. By all means, it's the same standard. The theft is the theft, be it from personal property of communal, but unused private property? Well, the only thing that takes from anyone is their legal claim to land that they themselves enforce only through the aid of the state.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42342235]Well, pretty much. They're very realistic... for small groups. One man ruling 1 small group is kind of bad, but is different with larger groups and more men having the same power.
I'd suggest a non-existent economy for a small group based around food for work. You work, you eat. Family and medical benefits when needed. Above roughly 25 people may be hard. 1000 can be possible. Anything more I'd really avoid it. This isn't Star Trek after all.
But of course if it was star trek and we did have a world were we dealt with sentient and allied alien species I would definitely go with a non economy/socialist government.
and if it doesn't work in the work world with large groups then it doesn't work good on paper either with large groups.
But that's just me at least.[/QUOTE]
I agree, which is why I support devolution of larger states.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42342259]Yes, but in each of their own little familial groups and clans, not as a unified species as a whole.[/QUOTE]
well statism hasn't gotten the species to cooperate as a whole either. there is constant warfare in the world.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342255]also the page that said that homes can be personal property.
oh wait you ignored that.
hominids worked together for millions of years before civilization. humans work together by nature, not by force.[/QUOTE]
yes and those millions of years we are talking about small family bands no larger than a few dozen, everyone knew the others' names, so of course no laws are necessary (though of course there is still an unstated government, similar to the way a child understands their place)
but we're talking about 8 billion people living in cities of upwards of a hundred thousand, with millions comprising nations and the metropolis within them
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342267]well statism hasn't gotten the species to cooperate as a whole either. there is constant warfare in the world.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, so I don't see anarchy as working well since it's never really existed.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342267]well statism hasn't gotten the species to cooperate as a whole either. there is constant warfare in the world.[/QUOTE]
as long as there are differing views and cultures (hint hint always will) there will be warfare
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342275]as long as there are differing views and cultures (hint hint always will) there will be warfare[/QUOTE]
so if unifying the species isn't a goal of statism the lack of ability of anarchy to unite the species can't really be held against it.
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342270]yes and those millions of years we are talking about small family bands no larger than a few dozen, everyone knew the others' names, so of course no laws are necessary (though of course there is still an unstated government, similar to the way a child understands their place)
but we're talking about 8 billion people living in cities of upwards of a hundred thousand, with millions comprising nations and the metropolis within them[/QUOTE]
that means that you have to use more complex methods of organization, not necessarily coercive.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342280]so if unifying the species isn't a goal of statism the lack of ability of anarchy to unite the species can't really be held against it.[/QUOTE]
unifying the species is a goal
will it ever succeed? probably not
but anarchy is by no means a superior alternative
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342280]that means that you have to use more complex methods of organization, not necessarily coercive.[/QUOTE]Such as what, exactly?
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342275]as long as there are differing views and cultures (hint hint always will) there will be warfare[/QUOTE]
The biggest contribution go warfare throughout human history has been resources, not cultural clashes.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42342293]The biggest contribution go warfare throughout human history has been resources, not cultural clashes.[/QUOTE]
i would have labelled "scarcity" in there too but i forgot
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;42342292]Such as what, exactly?[/QUOTE]
anarchist federations? council communism? a libertarian syndicate state?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342255]also the page that said that homes can be personal property.
oh wait you ignored that.
hominids worked together for millions of years before civilization. humans work together by nature, not by force.[/QUOTE]
Yes but the population of today is insanely different VS 100 years ago alone.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/300px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png[/t]
controlling populations are VERY very different these days.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342303]i would have labelled "scarcity" in there too but i forgot[/QUOTE]
Scarcity is such a major cause of all human conflict that I wouldn't even bother mentioning different cultures as an issue in it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342305]anarchist federations? council communism? a libertarian syndicate state?[/QUOTE]And how would these maintain themselves on such large scales? And how would they avoid becoming coercive if there is no unanimous opinions? End of the day, someone will get fucked.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342305]anarchist federations? council communism? a libertarian syndicate state?[/QUOTE]
1. literally an oxymoron
2. so who leads the council?
3. because that works with a couple million people. oh wait no it doesnt
I dont agree squatters should be able to just take a home because it is not in use. My parents house was empty for almost a year after they moved to a new home. Should they have had to constantly drive hours to make use of the property so random people couldn't move in? They earned the money and built that house, then maintained it for years. Should that count for nothing?
I dont see a society where all people are provided a truly equal living situation regardless of their societal role functioning. Even if you ignored the fact that people that are capable of taking things by force would probably quickly take over such a society. There is no motivation to do the undesirable jobs, you would never get enough volunteers to work in waste management, mining, or factory jobs. Who is going to clean up shit or bust rock when they could live just as well doing a cleaner less demanding job?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42338993]"lol the government gave me a little piece of paper that lets me utilize this land for my own benefit i guess i'll just abandon it then get pissed off when other people want to utilize it."
you have no property and no right to land you cannot or choose not to personally utilize.[/QUOTE]
This is why I love facepunch 6+ years and still people post like this.
Sorry we aren't all jabba da huts and let our fat non working asses occupy all out claimed land.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42342264']Sure. I didn't want to because I feel that yawmwen already kinda gave the blunt gist of it, but why not? It's a long read, so have some property discussion.
So the fuck is property in the first place? If we go back to the state of nature, where humanity exists without social contract, where we have complete liberty, then we have a system where humans act as beasts do- all for one, free-for-all, no control or constraint. We obviously don't exist in this state, but it's always a good theoretical to start from to demonstrate concepts at their base. A good example would be say an unoccupied piece of land. Let's say an island or something.
So some guys get off the boat on this island. The land is completely uninhabited, no natives, nothing. Since this is the state of nature, they come with no preconceived notions of law or property or rights. but, out of mutual interest they establish a settlement using the natural resources around them. They harvest, plant, log, fish, whatnot. Generally, their establishment is only planned in terms of mutual benefit. No one is quartering off land for specific individuals, just "this is your house, this is my house, this is the town hall, this is the market...". By all standards this is pretty close to primitive communism, and is what most colonies experience in America when they first landed. The resources are held in common. People are free to use the land as they see fit.
"Well now, wait, if they have houses and land they're using, that's property then, right?" Well, yes and no. It's not [I]private[/I] property, it's personal property or communal property. That is, it's property only in the sense that someone is using it. When it's used for personal use, actively, then it's in your possession. Actively used property. A house, a stove, a chair, a table. These are things that are [I]naturally[/I] property by virtue of its being manipulated immediately. At the same level, because no one owns the land, per se, but it is being worked, one could see it as personal property in the communal land. No one individual claims control of any or all of the land, but people still work it. Hence, because all the land is open to being used by anyone or everyone, it is communal property, and because it is then worked by individuals, it becomes personal property. It is by all standards an extension of the person.
Now, what about [I]private[/I] property? Private property is different, because of its private nature. Another word for private is exclusive, and in most cases this category of property means that everyone is excluded from using the property except for one person, or a group of people, or whoever "owns" the property. As we've seen, because no one truly owns any of the property on our island, to [I]exclude others from use of any given plot is now removing property from the common stake[/I]. Naturally, all property begins as unowned, or communal. To claim property as private is one thing, but for it to be private is another.
Why? Well, by the same standard that I could claim the entire land of Michigan as my own property, simply claiming land to be yours does nothing. On our island, if our islander John Locke we to claim 40 acres of our island for himself, and remove that from the common property, the only way he could possibly maintain that claim is if he could actually defend it. Whose to say that the others couldn't just begin to work that land like any other land? Locke can only maintain the private nature of his property if he uses force or coercion to keep others out.
Interesting enough, the state got started in part because groups of individuals who wished to take property from the common plot banded together and with force and coercion established rule of law whereby property is private. This system worked out for those who could enforce their claims. They could keep all on their property, more than what just they themselves produce. For instance, if another of our citizens comes on John Locke's land, and chops down a tree- well, because it was Locke's tree according to the enforcement of the exclusive nature of the property, then Locke can claim he is entitled to the lumber. Someone else worked to make that lumber, but because Locke owns the land, it's his now.
Now remember that the land is only owned by Locke because he can enforce it. In our state of nature, this basically means either establishing the exclusive status by violently forcing people from his property or taking from them what they forage from it. Alternatively, Locke could ally with his neighbor who also wishes to keep his property private and together they could enforce it. Keep this formula up, and expand it, next thing you know you have a state, enforcing the property claims of everybody using the power of the police force or military. This state becomes a country, which claims the same enforcement over all men in a region. And then countries vye for control of more property.
But where did it all start? That communal plot, that unclaimed land. And because property is now private, and valued and commoditized, it can be bought and traded. Before long, we have economies built on the buying and selling of what was the communal pool of resources. Naturally, no one owns any of it, but out of our own utilization of it it could be considered the personal property of individuals. This is no longer the case, because we have a state that enforces all private claims, and as such enforces also the concept of absentee ownership.
Absentee ownership comes hand in hand with private property, because property in this sense is not an extension of an individual but the enforced claims of that individual. He can go ahead and never set foot on that property, but because his claim over it is enforced by the state, then it's still "his", by no natural order but by the demand of the state. He can use it to build a factory, to bring in machines, to court people to use those machines to produce, and then because all of it met the standards and rules established by the state to fit "ownership", then he also gets claim on the produce, even though the only thing he really ever owned was what he himself could control within his arms reach. The rest was enforced by the state.
Imagine now that our industrialized island, in which capitalism is in full swing, that those who are working the machines which are not their own property, instead demand that this is their property now. Well, they would be in part right because by using those machines they are using them as an extension of their natural selves- like we would use our arms or tools, the machine acts as an extension or augment to their natural function. And what's more, the fact that it's them using it, in their area of enforcement, to make things also in their enforcement out of things in their enforcement, in the state of nature this would be a classic example of personal property. If this were still the state of nature, that worker could easily say "this is actually mine", and the property "owner" would be useless to do anything about it unless he was willing to forcibly come and pry the worker off the machine. But instead, the "owner" can call the police, who will come and apply their force to pry that worker off the machine, and enforce the exclusive status of that machine. The private ownership of the machine is in name only unless it can be enforced. And it can only be enforced by the standards and physical coercion of the society in which one exists. Hence, we can safely say that private property is a social construct, as opposed to the communal and personal property of our islander's ancestors.
Another example to punctuate the point: you borrow your friend your car. It is yours, legally, in name. It is your private property, and so long as you use it, then it is your personal property also. However, your friend is borrowing it. S/He takes it into the other state. Infact, s/he goes missing with it. It's your property in name, sure, but because no one can find him/her, and s/he's outside of your ability to enforce your claim, or your state's ability to enforce your claim, then simply put, your "ownership" of that car is absolutely meaningless, while your friend for all practical purposes holds your car as his/her personal property.
Which is exactly why someone can walk into a house and use it as their own, their own personal property, with total disregard of private holdings unless someone is capable of enforcing a claim. Absentee ownership is not really ownership at all unless it can be enforced as such. Does this mean that if someone comes in our houses and starts living in them, that our houses are now their property? No, because the houses are already our personal property, or extensions of ourselves, and to use force or coercion to prevent us from continuing to use them as such is equally harmful as the original theft of preventing someone from using the communal land. By all means, it's the same standard. The theft is the theft, be it from personal property of communal, but unused private property? Well, the only thing that takes from anyone is their legal claim to land that they themselves enforce only through the aid of the state.[/QUOTE]
i love pretty much every post you ever make you are awesome at explaining this stuff. i just get frustrated.
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;42342316]And how would these maintain themselves on such large scales? And how would they avoid becoming coercive if there is no unanimous opinions? End of the day, someone will get fucked.[/QUOTE]
delegation could be used for large scale. you keep things from become coercive by using voluntary systems. if you don't like the decisions the union makes, you are free to quit the union without fear of being killed, imprisoned, or starved.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342317]1. literally an oxymoron
2. so who leads the council?
3. because that works with a couple million people. oh wait no it doesnt[/QUOTE]
1. Oxymoronic how? Federatism has been a core tenant of anarchism since the ideology became what it is in the 1800s.
2. No one/whoever they elect to do so.
3. Except it does, I mean it's not like entire swaths of Spain, Ukraine, Mexico, Russia, or Italy haven't at one time or another lived under systems very similar to it oh wait they have haha
The federative and syndicated nature of these ideologies are done exactly so they can scale to larger populations without being notably coercive. The primary reason why they haven't historically been coercive and have worked as intended in their few examples in practice have been because decision making is "bottom up" and not top-down. While this may be a difficult concept for those who are used to voting away their decision making abilities to someone else in the name of "representation", and then being told what to do, [URL="http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/10606"]it really is an effective system when it's commonly accepted[/URL].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.