squatting

[Pat K]

OK... if he marries a raccoon and lives in a hollowed out tree...

It's good enough for the Keebler Elves.

I can't find find a decent VDO, but... well, you'll never will believe where those Keebler cookies come from, they're baked by little elves in a hollow tree... and what do you think makes those cookies so uncommon?.. they're baked in Magic Ovens and there's no factory.

Magic Ovens

[Lloyd Danforth]

No.  But, I'm sitting on one.

[David]

Sound to me that your land is going to waste. You have no use for it, aside from occasional gathering of the local fauna, which is likely improperly cultivated.

So you do want to clearcut the land?
You don't like the idea of having recreational land for folks to enjoy? Or do you want the government to tax us so they can manage recreational land.
You don't like the idea of forest management by private landowners?
You don't like the idea of wildlife management by private landowners?

A lot of anarchists do not believe in exclusive private property rights.     It is why I focus a lot on conflict these days.  If what you are doing is causing needless conflict, then please stop what you are doing.  Conflict is the health of the state, not anarchists.  One day they will learn this, unfortunately for most anarchists, they will prolly learn it in another 100 years or so after they have exhausted all other efforts, except the active pursuit of peace.   

[Nathan.Halcyon]

A lot of anarchists do not believe in exclusive private property rights.     It is why I focus a lot on conflict these days.  If what you are doing is causing needless conflict, then please stop what you are doing.  Conflict is the health of the state, not anarchists.  One day they will learn this, unfortunately for most anarchists, they will prolly learn it in another 100 years or so after they have exhausted all other efforts, except the active pursuit of peace.   

Oh, no, no. Don't misunderstand me. I do very much believe in exclusive property rights. I simply do not include land as being amongst such rights, unless it is being put to frequent use. The land that the constructs used for housing and production rest upon, planting fields, etc, used and occupied land, is the land that I view as exclusive to those who make use of it, and will respect their explicit rights to it, as well as their almost always shared claims to, and management of, such things as the water table, flora and fauna.

So you do want to clearcut the land?

Who do you think you're dealin' with here, Bucko?

Negative. I am, in fact, in the planning stages of an earth sheltered home for myself, upon which will be situated a vegetable garden, and inserted into, providing I can find the right plot of land for the right price, a heavily wooded area, cleared of foliage sufficient enough to afford space for the construction of my extremely efficient, and fully off-grid domicile.

You don't like the idea of having recreational land for folks to enjoy?

On the contrary. I often enjoy such myself. I'd hate to see such things littered with no trespassing signs.

Or do you want the government to tax us so they can manage recreational land.

You don't like the idea of forest management by private landowners?

Reckon that depends on the disposition of the private land owners, now don't it? You seem to conclude in your question that private ownership necessarily implies infallible stewardship of the resource.

You don't like the idea of wildlife management by private landowners?

Reckon that depends on the disposition of the private land owners, now don't it? You seem to conclude in your question that private ownership necessarily implies infallible stewardship of the resource.

In both cases, you don't seem to comprehend the fact that such resources, to say nothing of such things as water, air, etc, which are shared resources. Are you going to share the carcass of the deer that favors your neighbor's property, a resource primarily native to their property, but which wandered upon your property, which resulted in its death? A white tail buck that they've intentionally fattened with feed purchased with their hard earned coin, and intended for a winter harvest? Don't be ridiculous, right? The thought never would occur to you. It always occurs to me, which is why, the one time I went on a promised hunting trip with the father of a friend who damn near became my monogamous not-wife, after we'd field dressed the carcass of the buck I downed-fuckin' clean kill, too, didn't get 15 meters before collapse-I insisted that we distribute some of the best cuts to the folk who owned the land they let us use, and to the neighboring land. Far as I know, ol' Bill maintains this practice to this day. After all, he needs less for himself with his son and daughter both now in college, and his wife what run off on him in favor a 23 year old stud.

Mmm, gotta go hunting again soon. Venison skirt is so very superior to bovine skirt. Mmmh, deer fajitas. I think I'm going to definitely have to maintain a rather unorthodox seasonal menu when I get my business going. Don't soft flour tortilla venison skirt tacos slathered in grilled onions sound damn tasty? Ow, ow, gotta get out of these jeans...

[Nathan.Halcyon]

nathan might be part of the wildlife

I am indeed. Though as some would erroneously surmise, I'm not terribly fond of the concept of bestiality, though the pair of female pygmy goats my neighbor raised did provide some measure of temptation for me during a rather dry spell in my sex life. Mmm, pygmy goat..

[Pat K]

No.  But, I'm sitting on one.

  Glad I'M gonna see ya soon Lloyd.

[Pat McCotter]

OK, I'm going tone down.

A lot of anarchists do not believe in exclusive private property rights.     It is why I focus a lot on conflict these days.  If what you are doing is causing needless conflict, then please stop what you are doing.  Conflict is the health of the state, not anarchists.  One day they will learn this, unfortunately for most anarchists, they will prolly learn it in another 100 years or so after they have exhausted all other efforts, except the active pursuit of peace.   

Oh, no, no. Don't misunderstand me. I do very much believe in exclusive property rights. I simply do not include land as being amongst such rights, unless it is being put to frequent use. The land that the constructs used for housing and production rest upon, planting fields, etc, used and occupied land, is the land that I view as exclusive to those who make use of it, and will respect their explicit rights to it, as well as their almost always shared claims to, and management of, such things as the water table, flora and fauna.

So you do want to clearcut the land?

Who do you think you're dealin' with here, Bucko?

Negative. I am, in fact, in the planning stages of an earth sheltered home for myself, upon which will be situated a vegetable garden, and inserted into, providing I can find the right plot of land for the right price, a heavily wooded area, cleared of foliage sufficient enough to afford space for the construction of my extremely efficient, and fully off-grid domicile.

How does this jibe with your comment in a previous post about being an arcologist and wanting to get away from horizontal architecture? Didn't think I saw that, did'ya?

You don't like the idea of having recreational land for folks to enjoy?

On the contrary. I often enjoy such myself. I'd hate to see such things littered with no trespassing signs.

Then it wouldn't be recreational land - by which I mean land that all can enjoy. It is just land that one person/organization owns and cares for.

Or do you want the government to tax us so they can manage recreational land.

You don't like the idea of forest management by private landowners?

Reckon that depends on the disposition of the private land owners, now don't it? You seem to conclude in your question that private ownership necessarily implies infallible stewardship of the resource.

You don't like the idea of wildlife management by private landowners?

Reckon that depends on the disposition of the private land owners, now don't it? You seem to conclude in your question that private ownership necessarily implies infallible stewardship of the resource.

No, it doesn't imply infallible stewardship, just private stewardship vice governmental tax paid stewardship - which is also not infallible.

In both cases, you don't seem to comprehend the fact that such resources, to say nothing of such things as water, air, etc, which are shared resources. Are you going to share the carcass of the deer that favors your neighbor's property, a resource primarily native to their property, but which wandered upon your property, which resulted in its death? A white tail buck that they've intentionally fattened with feed purchased with their hard earned coin, and intended for a winter harvest? Don't be ridiculous, right? The thought never would occur to you. It always occurs to me, which is why, the one time I went on a promised hunting trip with the father of a friend who damn near became my monogamous not-wife, after we'd field dressed the carcass of the buck I downed-fuckin' clean kill, too, didn't get 15 meters before collapse-I insisted that we distribute some of the best cuts to the folk who owned the land they let us use, and to the neighboring land. Far as I know, ol' Bill maintains this practice to this day. After all, he needs less for himself with his son and daughter both now in college, and his wife what run off on him in favor a 23 year old stud.

Mmm, gotta go hunting again soon. Venison skirt is so very superior to bovine skirt. Mmmh, deer fajitas. I think I'm going to definitely have to maintain a rather unorthodox seasonal menu when I get my business going. Don't soft flour tortilla venison skirt tacos slathered in grilled onions sound damn tasty? Ow, ow, gotta get out of these jeans...

I would always offer some of the catch to those who gave me permission to hunt on their land.

[Dylboz]

I think that our default position ought to be easement. The "Trespassers will be shot on sight" mentality is not compatible with a truly free society, it turns you into a brutal dictator on whatever you claim as your own plot of land, hardly an improvement. As long as no damage is done and nothing stolen, then there's no harm done that would justify an attack. I think that life trumps property in cases where they conflict. The truth is, just as the Native Americans understood, you can't really justify a claim to land as far as the eye can see, because you can't realistically manage it, and only force, like in the case of government titles, can back it up. What you use through mixing in your labor is yours, but what you can use the same as anyone without extra effort, like hunting and fishing grounds, well, it's the commons. Hopefully, an ethic of stewardship and conservation prevails, as opposed to a mad rush to exploit. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking, but it seems to work in Scandinavia, where they call it the "right to wander," though they're expected to leave little trace that hey were there and take only what they need while they're at it.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

How does this jibe with your comment in a previous post about being an arcologist and wanting to get away from horizontal architecture? Didn't think I saw that, did'ya?

Quite well, I think, with my communal earth sheltered honeycomb habitat suggestion in Dave's "Creating a City of Non Aggression thread. Do you not agree? Also when, hopefully, or if I do manage to save up enough coin from selling deer fajitas to you scoundrels, I am able to purchase a plot, any unused land, and I hope I can afford quite a large number of acres, will be well advertised as land free for occupation, provided that those who occupy that land care well for it. Any who don't will get the boot. I plan to go a step further and help "squatters" build their domiciles. I am consistent, I think. Vodka sends me on a rambling path sometimes, though.

You don't like the idea of having recreational land for folks to enjoy?

On the contrary. I often enjoy such myself. I'd hate to see such things littered with no trespassing signs.

Then it wouldn't be recreational land - by which I mean land that all can enjoy. It is just land that one person/organization owns and cares for.

Agreed! Only, I believe that all unoccupied and unused land, which would be a minority in a fully anarchistic society despite current world population, should be free and open to all, including squatters who have decided to make that bit of land their home. I've got mine, you've got yours. We each own a bit of land, more than we make good use of. Why deny it to an individual or family who needs it for homesteading, if they prove good stewards of the land? Money doesn't mean much to a true anarchist. it is merely a medium of exchange, if ever used at all, and it doesn't need to be. And maybe it's just me, but ten grand spent to purchase land that'll be well occupied, put to good and fruitful use, and respected by good neighbors who respect you and yours, is money very well spent. Couldn't be better spent, I think.

Or do you want the government to tax us so they can manage recreational land.

You don't like the idea of forest management by private landowners?

Reckon that depends on the disposition of the private land owners, now don't it? You seem to conclude in your question that private ownership necessarily implies infallible stewardship of the resource.

You don't like the idea of wildlife management by private landowners?

Reckon that depends on the disposition of the private land owners, now don't it? You seem to conclude in your question that private ownership necessarily implies infallible stewardship of the resource.

No, it doesn't imply infallible stewardship, just private stewardship vice governmental tax paid stewardship - which is also not infallible.

Sorry, but it still seems to imply that exclusive ownership would imply proper stewardship. Mind you, government is a non-existent concept where my thoughts are concerned. I find your "private vs. government" concept of ownership of property fallacious. I think of land not occupied and used, whether owned or not, as free and open to any temporarily, and permanently to those who provide proper stewardship of the land.

We're arguing from two different states of mind and belief-errors abound. Miscommunication and misunderstanding are unavoidable. Eh, who cares. If we don't understand each other after this discussion, I'm game for a pit fight. Such things should be far more common place. Always will you find two gents in agreement with, or a state of complete apathy, in regards to the argument they were having, after a good natured round of fisticuffs. N.H. Fight Club. Think I'll organize one of those, too.. Why? Almost always because the argument is, in the end, largely without necessity after two men slug it out. Palahniuk is a fucking genius, easily the equivalent of Stephen Hawking.

YOU ASSIGNMENT IN MY ABSENCE: Collect a half dozen comrades. Locate a Walmart store. Grab a shopping cart and fill it with odds and ends as you collectively make your way to the Toys department. Once located, proceed to the preschool section. Locate Fisher Price Barnyard Basics or the flip-mouth cow, chicken, or dog electronic toys. Disperse throughout the store. Locate store telephones, and employ the page line or dial #96 to make use of the in store PA system. Activate your toy, drop it in your basket when done,, and locate another phone whilst pretending to shop. Repeat until discovered or bored. In either case, either locate or be located by a salaried member of management, identifiable by their use of walkies, drop your trousers and display your bare backsides to them. Flee the store.

No military grade ordnance or vandalism required, and it's one hell of a fun way to kill an hour.

In both cases, you don't seem to comprehend the fact that such resources, to say nothing of such things as water, air, etc, which are shared resources. Are you going to share the carcass of the deer that favors your neighbor's property, a resource primarily native to their property, but which wandered upon your property, which resulted in its death? A white tail buck that they've intentionally fattened with feed purchased with their hard earned coin, and intended for a winter harvest? Don't be ridiculous, right? The thought never would occur to you. It always occurs to me, which is why, the one time I went on a promised hunting trip with the father of a friend who damn near became my monogamous not-wife, after we'd field dressed the carcass of the buck I downed-fuckin' clean kill, too, didn't get 15 meters before collapse-I insisted that we distribute some of the best cuts to the folk who owned the land they let us use, and to the neighboring land. Far as I know, ol' Bill maintains this practice to this day. After all, he needs less for himself with his son and daughter both now in college, and his wife what run off on him in favor a 23 year old stud.

Mmm, gotta go hunting again soon. Venison skirt is so very superior to bovine skirt. Mmmh, deer fajitas. I think I'm going to definitely have to maintain a rather unorthodox seasonal menu when I get my business going. Don't soft flour tortilla venison skirt tacos slathered in grilled onions sound damn tasty? Ow, ow, gotta get out of these jeans...

I would always offer some of the catch to those who gave me permission to hunt on their land.

But what of those who own adjacent land, from which your kill may primarily be native? Is it not preferable that nobody own the land, and it be free for all to hunt, responsibly, for their sustenance? The are millions of privately owned acreage that could be freely hunted with little impact, and littler oversight required to ensure proper use (i.e. deterrent to pure sport hunting and mass poaching-in such cases, if demonstrable proof of their abuse and belligerence exists, then eliminate them. Elsewise, run 'em off with a posse and leave enough perforations in their automobile to remind them of their error.). I'm an odd type of pacifist to be sure.

As an aside, dude, cleaning up this post was a severe pain in the ass.

[Pat McCotter]

As an aside, dude, cleaning up this post was a severe pain in the ass.

Wasn't it, though?

Thanks for the discourse.

[Mikehz]

IMHO, squatting is the greatest exercise in the world. Everyone should squat, and should do it often.

I squat twice a week, 400+ pounds.

[John Edward Mercier]

I wouldn't blame it on the Vodka.

If you purchase a plot, violation of your first principle, then allow others to homestead it... you've entered an implied agreement. Squatting involves no such implied agreement.

In NH, many are timber farming... so while the property is lightly managed, it is still managed... and not unused.

Money is used to represent labor (physical or mental) and is thus a representation of one's sacrifice of life in exchange.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

I still didn't rectify the structure of that damned post when all was said and done.

I wouldn't blame it on the Vodka.

I'm not offended.

If you purchase a plot, violation of your first principle, then allow others to homestead it... you've entered an implied agreement. Squatting involves no such implied agreement.

This is not a violation. It is a tactic, and a sacrifice on my part. You have a skewed notion of what squatting is. Squatting merely implies making use of land or construct without permission. Whether permission is required or not has no real bearing on the definition. I give not two greasy shits how it is legally defined. I don't acknowledge law or state, after all, eh? Moreover, I wouldn't be allowing anyone to squat, as I wouldn't own the land, despite the fact that I legally own it. Fuckin' mind bending, ain't it? That's your problem, though, lib. The fuck does 1841 or 1862 mean to me? I would merely be making the act of squatting a more hassle free act with my sacrifice.

[John Edward Mercier]

If squatting is defined as making use of land or construct without permission. Then once permission is given its no longer squatting.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

If squatting is defined as making use of land or construct without permission. Then once permission is given its no longer squatting.

Permission is never given. Permission is not necessary. You are viewing my actions from a very conservative libertarian perspective, assuming ownership of property. Assuming "lawful" recognition of my ownership of unused property is your position. My position is a sacrifice of my personal wealth to liberate land from private ownership. Call it charity. Squatting, homesteading, define it as you will, you small minded cretin. It's true definition is free land, open to any who seek to use it. My sacrifice purchased it from criminal control. Whether that purchase was with my blood or my labor makes little difference. If individuals were all I had to contend with, my Sig .40S&W/.357Sig and Remington 700 would be sufficient. It is not. Sacrifices to engage the State are necessary. The latter insures some stability, however temporary, under the current state of State of oppression. However, I am no Ed Brown. I am not afraid to kill, nor am I afraid to die. Life is not sacred to me. The life of an individual is only sacred to me when that individual life pursues and propagates freedom.

Any who sacrifice themselves to service to that which oppresses and limits human freedom, is already dead to me. When the tax man comes for me, I won't remain holed up in my rickety house waiting for salvation, trusting in god and law, internet propaganda, and supporters. I won't stand to be touched, but will instead visit upon them, that which they will visit upon me if I do not comply. I trust only in free humanity and myself as a free human being. I don't accept part time freedom.

When I purchase, not if, the land I choose, and I intend to wait until I can purchase a large amount, any portions unused by myself will be free and open to all who choose to squat there. Period. No agreements or obligations required. Any abuse of my used land by occupiers of adjacent land will be dealt with. Moreover, I may very well use my wealth to construct permanent facilities akin to my own, and sacrifice them to squatters who choose to make use of them. Or, I may choose to what David has chosen, but more akin to the idea offered in my response to his post regarding a "city of non-aggression" - We'll see, huh?

A double shot of Nyquil and couple caps of Benadryl impeded my faculties in my previous response. My position is sound, despite employing tactics necessary to ensure the elimination of a small portion of criminally owned property by sacrificing the products of my labor to liberate that land, free and clear of all but implied obligation to property taxation and legal which is unavoidable. I will not heed that obligation. I will be living my principles through my actions, in a small way, by providing land free for squatting. I will not be violating them.

What have you done? What do you plan to affect change? Vote?