squatting

[J’raxis 270145]

I think that life trumps property in cases where they conflict.

The right to life is a right to property—ownership of yourself. It's not the rights that come into conflict, it's the two parties themselves—and whichever party is committing aggression is choosing to forfeit their rights by doing so, while doing so. To wit, if I trespass on another's land, I'm forfeiting my right of property (my right to life) by aggressing against his right of property (to the land), until such time that I stop aggressing against him.

[Pat McCotter]

So Nathan,
I squat on "your" land, say ... 10 acres or so ... make improvements, and then head over to the county office and file deed with them. Are you going to fight me on this? You did free the land. I am just taking what you have freed, no?

[John Edward Mercier]

Purchasing private property is freeing it from criminal control?
And permission can be implied. If Jeremy crosses my property without verbal/written permission, and I witness him doing so without impeding him... he has not trespassed. If he camps on my property without my impeding him... he has not trespassed. Heck, even if he builds a home and garden... he has not trespassed.
You stressed that squatting is the act without permission...

[Dylboz]

I think that life trumps property in cases where they conflict.

The right to life is a right to property—ownership of yourself. It's not the rights that come into conflict, it's the two parties themselves—and whichever party is committing aggression is choosing to forfeit their rights by doing so, while doing so. To wit, if I trespass on another's land, I'm forfeiting my right of property (my right to life) by aggressing against his right of property (to the land), until such time that I stop aggressing against him.

Yeah, sorry, but I don't think so. I think at most I may have forfeited by my actions my right to remain on the land or in the building in question, if I knowingly and intentionally violated your legitimate boundary claim to it, but your reaction should be at most proportional to the damage you suffered. In no way have I forfeited my "right to life." You cannot kill me in good conscience for squatting. Eject me, fine, pursue restitution of I have damaged the property or diminished its value or cost you money in delaying some project, but if you walked in gunning for me, I think I'd be justified in defending myself. This is not an act of aggression we're talking about, except in the most abstract way. It is occupying and using what appears to be abandoned. I am not busting down your door in the middle of the night, I am setting up a camp on vacant land or occupying a vacant structure. In fact, until you show up with proof of some prior valid claim, I am legitimately homesteading.

[J’raxis 270145]

I think that life trumps property in cases where they conflict.

The right to life is a right to property—ownership of yourself. It's not the rights that come into conflict, it's the two parties themselves—and whichever party is committing aggression is choosing to forfeit their rights by doing so, while doing so. To wit, if I trespass on another's land, I'm forfeiting my right of property (my right to life) by aggressing against his right of property (to the land), until such time that I stop aggressing against him.

Yeah, sorry, but I don't think so. I think at most I may have forfeited by my actions my right to remain on the land or in the building in question, if I knowingly and intentionally violated your legitimate boundary claim to it, but your reaction should be at most proportional to the damage you suffered. In no way have I forfeited my "right to life." You cannot kill me in good conscience for squatting. Eject me, fine, pursue restitution of I have damaged the property or diminished its value or cost you money in delaying some project, but if you walked in gunning for me, I think I'd be justified in defending myself. This is not an act of aggression we're talking about, except in the most abstract way. It is occupying and using what appears to be abandoned. I am not busting down your door in the middle of the night, I am setting up a camp on vacant land or occupying a vacant structure. In fact, until you show up with proof of some prior valid claim, I am legitimately homesteading.

[I know that this debate's already been had somewhere around here or the other forums.]

No private property should ever "appear to be abandoned." Anyone who wishes to claim a piece of property should post it NO TRESPASSING so it's clear to anyone else that if they set foot on it, it's owned, and that they are thus voluntarily choosing to commit an act of aggression against another's property, and thus implicitly forfeiting their own right.

However, I would not consider it immoral/wrong for a person to defend even unmarked private property with deadly force, although if he did so in an unreasonably quick manner (e.g., "shoot first, ask questions later"), I would probably want nothing to do with such a person. He's committed no aggression by defending his property in such a manner, and thus his actions aren't "immoral," but they are certainly distasteful and unreasonable enough, to me, that social ostracism would be in order.

In a free society, I think market forces would solve this problem—why would someone choose to leave a piece of property, that they are so obsessive about that they would shoot trespassers thereon, unposted or unfenced?

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Yeah, sorry, but I don't think so.

Then you don't believe in absolute ownership if property. I'll agree with you that a sane and rational person wouldn't kill you for standing on their street corner but that's because the amount of energy required to correct the trespass is less than that of killing you - it is in a persons self-interest to conserve energy.

But if you think for a MOMENT your uninvited presence in my home simply means you've lost your right to be there, you've got another thing coming (namely, gun fire).

Again, I accept what you say that resolution to trespass should be proportional to the tresspass, but at the same time I do hold the understanding that IF the owner of that land deems your action signifigant enough to need lethal force, that IS his right as sole owner of the land.

I am not busting down your door in the middle of the night, I am setting up a camp on vacant land or occupying a vacant structure.

And I'm failing to grasp why you think there's a practical difference. A libertarian society would accept that various people choose to live their lives in different manners. Why then, should Kola's lifestyle choice to live in tandem with nature, on undeveloped land, take a backseat to your desire to build a house? Crossing a fence is as much of a tresspass as climbing through a window in my eyes.

In fact, until you show up with proof of some prior valid claim, I am legitimately homesteading.

Someone putting up signs or a fence isn't a valid claim? The agreement of a neighbor isn't valid claim?

[Dylboz]

If you really think that a property violation rises to the level of a physical attack on your person, in my opinion, your values are really fucked up. I do not believe in "absolute property" if it means that your property is an extension of your body and therefore you can shoot someone for being on your land. And yes, it is decidedly immoral to "defend" unmarked property with deadly force, and ostracism isn't enough of a punishment. A person who would just shoot another for being in their shack, without first exhausting all reasonable means of removing them peacefully, should expet retribution, and they should not be surprised if they are met with deadly, defensive force by their intended targets.

Also, I specifically differentiated between an occupied domicile, and a vacant building or empty piece of land for the very reason that I would expect to get shot if I broke into your house while you were in it and obviously using it. I am talking about whether it is legitimate to claim ownership of property as far as the eye can see, or to property one has essentially abandoned. It was done by the Founding Fathers, and they had nothing but consternation in maintaining their claims because they did not use the land they said they owned and had government title to. Washington alone spent years and thousands of dollars in legal fights to establish local control of land he was awarded after the Revolution, so he could do nothing more than demand rent from those already on it. He never faired very well in those fights, since "possession is 9/10ths of the law." I think that was as it should have been. And when he failed to achieve his grand plan for the Patomac, it proceeded to develop according to the needs and desires of the people who actually lived there and used the land themselves, with the notable exception of the natives, who's prior claims (and basic human rights) were largely ignored.

What your extreme propertariansism, for lack of a better term, implies, is that a person forfeits all their rights, including the right to remain alive and free from physical assault, just by crossing some imaginary line in the sand you've drawn. They have, by virtue of entering your property, vacant and unattended though it may be, become your property to dispose of as you see fit, up to and including murder, and this you find eminently moral, though aesthetically displeasing. I am, in a word, appalled.

Look, build a fence, post signs, and 99% of the time, people will respect them. But, if you never come back, for like 20 years, to use the land or the building, or even just poke around and talk to the neighbors enough to establish stewardship, don't be surprised if someone else has. And, if you want them out, ask first. You know, come to think of it, there's a principle in common law that covers this, and it states that if a person makes use of your property for a certain period of time and you never object, then they legally become the owner by default, and all you can ask for is some restitution, not eviction. Not sure what the period of time is, but say, a year or two seems reasonable to me.

As I said before, when it comes to open land, easement ought to be the default, otherwise Libertopia is merely a series of petty dictatorships separated by fences, where you're as likely to get shot, enslaved or robbed as in any state around. Is it true that we really want freedom for all, or do we oppose the state because we merely covet it's absolute power and wish to exercise it ourselves?

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I do not believe in "absolute property" if it means that your stuff is an extension of your body and therefore you can shoot someone for being on your land.

What makes you being on my farm, without my consent (threatened to be backed up by force) any less wrong than you being in my living room with the same? I simply don't understand the logic behind that arguement. If property violation is acceptable, how is property violation unacceptable? If "being vacant" by your definition is enough for someone's property right to be forfeited for some other purpose, what makes emminent domain seizures unethical at all?

If you really think that a property violation rises to the level of a physical attack on your person, in my opinion, your values are really fucked up.

Property ownership is one of those situations where people of different outlooks see things differently. For me, the fact that ALL human beings need to eat, and the process of eating takes food and makes it an individiable part of you, is the basis for the right to property ownership. The very reason I believe property can be owned is because all humans to survive MUST make some property an extension of their own body. So yes, I DO very much see property as an extension of my person. Denying that is denying any person's claim to ANY property (which "true anarchists" actually do).

I am talking about whether it is legitimate to claim ownership of property as far as the eye can see, or to property one has essentially abandoned

What criteria would one put on "abandonment"? How long must pass? Can you claim my house while my wife and I are at work? What about on our week long vacation? How about a 6 month cruise around the world? What period of time must pass before you beleive you can shoot me for entering my property, which you claim you would now own?

I agree with you, that claiming insane amounts of land doesn't give you a right to that land. I can't claim the moon, for instance and then sue when it is landed upon. However, in my mind once someone utilizes land (or any property) that property is forever theirs and until they dispose of it by inheritance, sale or destruction. The reason for this absolutest position is, frankly, I like to avoid slippery slopes, because they're the justification for all sorts of tyranny. If you argue that there are a certain set of circumstances at which a person looses their right to property then that set of circumstances will always creep closer and closer to "everyday usage". Emminent domain is a perfect example of how the "rare cases" where someone may loose their property is abused, to the point it isn't rare. The same arguement is used for taxes. The "greater good" is enough excuse to deprive you of the wealth you create - your say so, your desired intent for the property doesn't matter. Buying a plot of undeveloped land, with intend to give to one's offspring is fair use of that land and just because it's not developed doesn't lay waste to that intent.

[Pat McCotter]

NH has current use law. Keeps the property tax down if you allow hunting/recreation on your land.

We don't want no stinkin' taxes and this is a debate on how NH is gonna be - not how it is!

Oops! Sorry.

[J’raxis 270145]

Also, I specifically differentiated between an occupied domicile, and a vacant building or empty piece of land for the very reason that I would expect to get shot if I broke into your house while you were in it and obviously using it. I am talking about whether it is legitimate to claim ownership of property as far as the eye can see, or to property one has essentially abandoned. It was done by the Founding Fathers, and they had nothing but consternation in maintaining their claims because they did not use the land they said they owned and had government title to. Washington alone spent years and thousands of dollars in legal fights to establish local control of land he was awarded after the Revolution, so he could do nothing more than demand rent from those already on it. He never faired very well in those fights, since "possession is 9/10ths of the law." I think that was as it should have been. And when he failed to achieve his grand plan for the Patomac, it proceeded to develop according to the needs and desires of the people who actually lived there and used the land themselves, with the notable exception of the natives, who's prior claims (and basic human rights) were largely ignored.

Washington was a statist—one of the founding statists of our current system, in fact. His abuses of property rights no doubt arose from such a mindset, and say absolutely nothing about what property rights in a free society would look like.

If you really think that a property violation rises to the level of a physical attack on your person, in my opinion, your values are really fucked up. I do not believe in "absolute property" if it means that your property is an extension of your body and therefore you can shoot someone for being on your land. And yes, it is decidedly immoral to "defend" unmarked property with deadly force, and ostracism isn't enough of a punishment. A person who would just shoot another for being in their shack, without first exhausting all reasonable means of removing them peacefully, should expet retribution, and they should not be surprised if they are met with deadly, defensive force by their intended targets.

...

What your extreme propertariansism, for lack of a better term, implies, is that a person forfeits all their rights, including the right to remain alive and free from physical assault, just by crossing some imaginary line in the sand you've drawn. They have, by virtue of entering your property, vacant and unattended though it may be, become your property to dispose of as you see fit, up to and including murder, and this you find eminently moral, though aesthetically displeasing. I am, in a word, appalled.

It's not really my theory, it's one of the many ways I've seen of deriving and unifying the concept of "rights" and just happens to be the one that makes the most sense to me. Long story short, it goes like this: Property is the fundamental right, and all other rights are just derivations (or mere re-castings) thereof. The right to life, physical freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, self-sovereignty, &c., are all just re-castings of the right of self-ownership. From there, you have the right to own other things that are not themselves capable of self-ownership—this includes personal belongings, movable property, and real property. Whatever you can claim, that is not already claimed, or unclaimable (e.g., other self-sovereign beings) is yours for the claiming.

Morality to me means, "Is it legitimate to use force to stop this?" The Non-Aggression Principle says that force is only moral to use in response to an initiation of force (aggression); all other uses of force are initiation itself, and thus aggression, and thus immoral. The act of trespassing is an act of aggression, unconditionally—you can't "trespass a little" or somesuch, any more than you can "mug someone a little" or "rape someone a little." And thus, being a clear-cut act of aggression, it invites the use of force in return.

I agree 100% that it would be unreasonable and disproportionate to shoot someone on-sight on your property, if it's unmarked, as he is most likely trespassing by accident—but I don't allow questions of reasonableness or proportionality, which are highly subjective concepts, to intrude upon matters of morality. Morality should be black and white, which the Non-Aggression Principle is. Honestly, think about this—do you want someone else's idea of reasonableness or proportionality telling you how to behave with respect to your property rights? Isn't letting others tell us how to behave what got us into this statist mess in the first place?

Look, build a fence, post signs, and 99% of the time, people will respect them. But, if you never come back, for like 20 years, to use the land or the building, or even just poke around and talk to the neighbors enough to establish stewardship, don't be surprised if someone else has. And, if you want them out, ask first.

That's exactly how I'd handle it. That doesn't mean that I believe that force (your idea that such trespassers could legitimately defend themselves against being forcibly removed) should be used to make someone handle it this way.

You know, come to think of it, there's a principle in common law that covers this, and it states that if a person makes use of your property for a certain period of time and you never object, then they legally become the owner by default, and all you can ask for is some restitution, not eviction. Not sure what the period of time is, but say, a year or two seems reasonable to me.

Squatters' rights, and English common law had it at seven years I believe. But I'm a voluntaryist who doesn't believe in "common law" any more than any other form of Statist "law."

As I said before, when it comes to open land, easement ought to be the default, otherwise Libertopia is merely a series of petty dictatorships separated by fences, where you're as likely to get shot, enslaved or robbed as in any state around. Is it true that we really want freedom for all, or do we oppose the state because we merely covet it's absolute power and wish to exercise it ourselves?

The big difference between the State and "Libertopia" is that no one is forcing you to stay; in fact, what we're talking about here is forcing uninvited people off of private land. In a free society, everything is voluntary: People would and ought to have the right to run their private property as a "petty dictatorship." What they lack is a right to subject others to their rule.

And, some would run their property as a petty dictatorship, and some wouldn't. Why should I care how others run their private property? It's theirs, and is none of my concern, nor should it be; if I don't like it, I'll leave them alone.

Why is it your concern?

Why trouble yourself over others' choices?

[J’raxis 270145]

NH has current use law. Keeps the property tax down if you allow hunting/recreation on your land.

We don't want no stinkin' taxes and this is a debate on how NH is gonna be - not how it is!

Oops! Sorry.

And when I buy land, this is what I'd do with most of it—I want a big chunk of land to serve as a buffer between myself and other development, but really don't care about the stray hiker or hunter crossing it from time to time. I'd simply fence off the few acres directly surrounding my dwelling as private use complete with NO TRESPASSING signage.

It's all about personal choice. If someone else wants to buy 200 acres and patrol it like a petty despot, shotgun in hand, let him. I'll be sure to call him a nutjob, let all his neighbors know he's a nutjob, and leave him to his own devices.

[Pat McCotter]

OK. Thank you.

[John Edward Mercier]

Kevin,
The term your looking for is adverse possession.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Kevin,
The term your looking for is adverse possession.

Did I miss something? The term is new to me, but the concept is what Dylboz is arguing. 

[Russell Kanning]

I also agree that people's lives are more important than someone's claim to land.