squatting

[Russell Kanning]

when you need 5 guys to spot you ... you are lifting too much

[David]

Classic line in the article Turf Wars that Pat McCotter posted

"Maybe I get lost in my own hype, but the poor have so little available to them that practically anything they do is illegal. Be a street vendor, you're illegal. Haul trash with no license, you're illegal. Fix an apartment, you're illegal. The only way to be legal is to sit in a shelter and give up."

Stuff like this is what made me think that squatting is the only practical answer to the gov't control.  They make it so difficult to do anything without their permission.  But who made them my masters?  Their badges?  Their guns?  This isn't a unique american thing, it is done prolly in every nation in the world.  There are estimates that close to a billion people squat. 

[John Edward Mercier]

There seems to be some confusion here in that Friday was talking about "bank-owned" houses that were taken from the owners for tax reasons, not foreclosure.

The owner of the home (the bank) becomes responsible for the taxes.

[sandm000]

There seems to be some confusion here in that Friday was talking about "bank-owned" houses that were taken from the owners for tax reasons, not foreclosure.

That's what I said, or at least that's the point I was trying to make.

[Pat K]

"when you need 5 guys to spot you ... you are lifting too much"

Them be good words to live by Russelll.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

The single thing that turned me on to free market anarchy was "The Market For Liberty" and one issue specifcially is the ability to homestead, or do exactly what you're talking about. For instance, say we disolved the government today, and a bunch of homeless people took control of a house (say a halfway house owned by the Department of Corrections) and worked to maintain it, they would be taking rightful ownership of the property by making viable use of it.

Right now, I consider everything owned by "government" to be unowned and fairly claimable by a homesteader.

That said, the same to a person's property would be tresspassing.

This of course, erroneously in my belief, does not extend to unused "property". Land or constructs used irregularly, seasonally, or not at all, wastefully, but none the less "owned" is trespassed upon if put to good use by trespassers for the purpose of shelter or production.

Kat, darlin', you are sadly correct. Such discussions ought be the castor oil of anarchist philosophy! Balkanization and segregation when it comes to the philosophy of land rights seems the only option. Land rights seems one of the few things anarchists, of whatever bent, utterly fail to agree upon. I favor a permanent state of transition, myself. I do not believe that "rights" are derived from any form of property other than ownership of our physical bodies, and it is by virtue of the fact that we live that we have such rights. Our physical bodies share this rock we call Earth. Exclusive ownership of land implies the right to coerce others, to arbitrarily force others to pay for the use, or force them off, of your exclusively owned property.

Such actions seem only valid if the land they "trespass" upon violates another's use of that land. In regards to this notion, one would think that given modern engineering technology and human capability, we might be done with this horizontal notion of property. Maybe I'm just a fanciful arcologist.. Or, perhaps it's the vodka!

"Private property" to me is a meaningless concept unless the land and constructs upon that land are in use, and if only the constructs themselves are in use, the supposedly "owned" but unused land encompassing these constructs are free for homsteading. The natural resources of that land, such as the water table, fertile soil, etc, of that land, are a universal resource if not put to use. Rights come into play only when one individual or groups of cooperative individuals threaten that resource, for example through abuse of the resource or the pollution of it. Then, and only then, do those who share that resource have a valid claim and reason to exercise force to protect it, and themselves.

For example, if I possess a five acre plot of land, but only use two acres to provide shelter and produce food for my family, I see no reason why another should not be within their rights homestead there on those unused acres as long as we can both agree to wisely and proportionately make fair use of the shared resources (i.e. the water table). You must do that anyway.

Ugh. Vodka is not conducive to rational discussion of such things, however, and I feel the effects of my night cap beginning to take hold.

Oi, I wish I were there to shoot the shit you with folk in person. I've always hated forums. I imagine I'm going to have a lot of fun on Taproom Tuesdays, providing I choose Manchester, as I most likely will.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

when you need 5 guys to spot you ... you are lifting too much

As long as you can accomplish the task, you're not lifting enough.

[Pat McCotter]

"Private property" to me is a meaningless concept unless the land and constructs upon that land are in use, and if only the constructs themselves are in use, the supposedly "owned" but unused land encompassing these constructs are free for homsteading. The natural resources of that land, such as the water table, fertile soil, etc, of that land, are a universal resource if not put to use. Rights come into play only when one individual or groups of cooperative individuals threaten that resource, for example through abuse of the resource or the pollution of it. Then, and only then, do those who share that resource have a valid claim and reason to exercise force to protect it, and themselves.

For example, if I possess a five acre plot of land, but only use two acres to provide shelter and produce food for my family, I see no reason why another should not be within their rights homestead there on those unused acres as long as we can both agree to wisely and proportionately make fair use of the shared resources (i.e. the water table). You must do that anyway.

Ugh. Vodka is not conducive to rational discussion of such things, however, and I feel the effects of my night cap beginning to take hold.

Oi, I wish I were there to shoot the shit you with folk in person. I've always hated forums. I imagine I'm going to have a lot of fun on Taproom Tuesdays, providing I choose Manchester, as I most likely will.

If I have 50 acres of land and only "improve" 2 acres of it for living - shelter, food, water, etc - then the other 48 acres is used for hunting, wood fuel management, recreation, wildlife management, etc. Sounds like you propose to clearcut all the land and build shelters. Bah! Go find somewhere else to live!

[Tom Sawyer]

Yeah, I'm with you Pat...

If my Rottie or rifle don't get ya the little woman will, she'll shoutdown and run off hunters if she takes a mind to. 

[Nathan.Halcyon]

"Private property" to me is a meaningless concept unless the land and constructs upon that land are in use, and if only the constructs themselves are in use, the supposedly "owned" but unused land encompassing these constructs are free for homsteading. The natural resources of that land, such as the water table, fertile soil, etc, of that land, are a universal resource if not put to use. Rights come into play only when one individual or groups of cooperative individuals threaten that resource, for example through abuse of the resource or the pollution of it. Then, and only then, do those who share that resource have a valid claim and reason to exercise force to protect it, and themselves.

For example, if I possess a five acre plot of land, but only use two acres to provide shelter and produce food for my family, I see no reason why another should not be within their rights homestead there on those unused acres as long as we can both agree to wisely and proportionately make fair use of the shared resources (i.e. the water table). You must do that anyway.

Ugh. Vodka is not conducive to rational discussion of such things, however, and I feel the effects of my night cap beginning to take hold.

Oi, I wish I were there to shoot the shit you with folk in person. I've always hated forums. I imagine I'm going to have a lot of fun on Taproom Tuesdays, providing I choose Manchester, as I most likely will.

If I have 50 acres of land and only "improve" 2 acres of it for living - shelter, food, water, etc - then the other 48 acres is used for hunting, wood fuel management, recreation, wildlife management, etc. Sounds like you propose to clearcut all the land and build shelters. Bah! Go find somewhere else to live!

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.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

Yeah, I'm with you Pat...

If my Rottie or rifle don't get ya the little woman will, she'll shoutdown and run off hunters if she takes a mind to. 

Assuming that I'm not a highly responsive crack shot with my Remington 700 or Sig 40S&W sidearm.

[Pat McCotter]

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?

[Russell Kanning]

nathan might be part of the wildlife

[Tom Sawyer]

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

[Jim Johnson]

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