Advertisement
by Kernen » Fri Mar 22, 2024 9:41 pm
by Juansonia » Fri Mar 22, 2024 10:56 pm
As far as I can tell, "squatter's rights" is adverse posession. Because people refer to trespasser residents as "squatters", eviction protections get incorrectly called "squatter's rights".Kernen wrote:Squatters rights evolve from Lockean theories on property and improving or making productive that which is not in use otherwise. It's the rental version of adverse possession. Squatters deserve those rights only insofar as society adheres to Locke and his property theories.
Space Squid wrote:Each sin should get it's own month.
Right now, Pride gets June, and Greed, Envy, and Gluttony have to share Thanksgiving/Black Friday through Christmas, Sloth gets one day in September, and Lust gets one day in February.
It's not equitable at all
Gandoor wrote:Cliché: A mod making a reply that's full of swearing after someone asks if you're allowed to swear on this site.
It makes me chuckle every time it happens.
by Trump Almighty » Sat Mar 23, 2024 8:55 am
Ifreann wrote:Trollgaard wrote:There's seems to be an increase of squatters 'moving in' to homes on the market, people on vacation, and homes of people who died. The process for legally getting them to leave can be long and expensive- and many times they trash the home before leaving. At least from the news stories over the past few months.
I read one story a few months a back of a guy who went on vacation, came back, and people had broken into his house, changed the locks, and he didn't have home anymore! Last I heard he was trying to sell the home at a huge loss due to the headaches of removing squatters.
What happened to all his shit?! Family photos, books, clothes, etc?
That is just wrong.
Another that just happened was the lady in New York who was arrested for apparently trying to change the locks on her house after squatters changed them. How fucked up is that?
I think those squatters were forced out by threats from neighbors or something, but god damn. People should have the right to go in and do whatever is required to get the squatters to leave.
Squatters rights takes years, in some cases decades, to actually grant ownership to the squatter. If someone goes on vacation for two weeks and comes home to find someone has broken into their house and changed the locks, squatters rights just wouldn't apply. I don't know what legal difficulty there would be there, but it can't be squatters rights.
by Kernen » Sat Mar 23, 2024 8:57 am
Juansonia wrote:As far as I can tell, "squatter's rights" is adverse posession. Because people refer to trespasser residents as "squatters", eviction protections get incorrectly called "squatter's rights".Kernen wrote:Squatters rights evolve from Lockean theories on property and improving or making productive that which is not in use otherwise. It's the rental version of adverse possession. Squatters deserve those rights only insofar as society adheres to Locke and his property theories.
by Paddy O Fernature » Sat Mar 23, 2024 8:59 am
Trump ALMIGHTY wrote:Ifreann wrote:Squatters rights takes years, in some cases decades, to actually grant ownership to the squatter. If someone goes on vacation for two weeks and comes home to find someone has broken into their house and changed the locks, squatters rights just wouldn't apply. I don't know what legal difficulty there would be there, but it can't be squatters rights.
Whether or not squatters rights apply, the fact remains that their home was trashed by squatters. When someone does something illegal, it’s only right for the victim (the lady in New York) to receive just compensation. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to live in a world where folks who break the law have fancified notions of what they can get away with. Law & Order! We must Keep our Country Safe!
by The Military State of the Galapagos » Sat Mar 23, 2024 9:00 am
by Kernen » Sat Mar 23, 2024 9:01 am
Paddy O Fernature wrote:Trump ALMIGHTY wrote:
Whether or not squatters rights apply, the fact remains that their home was trashed by squatters. When someone does something illegal, it’s only right for the victim (the lady in New York) to receive just compensation. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to live in a world where folks who break the law have fancified notions of what they can get away with. Law & Order! We must Keep our Country Safe!
This....
Or we simply acknowledge that Law has failed completely and we start letting people settle their own matters/problems as they see fit seeking compensation from those who have wronged them.
by Ifreann » Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:48 am
Paddy O Fernature wrote:Trump ALMIGHTY wrote:
Whether or not squatters rights apply, the fact remains that their home was trashed by squatters. When someone does something illegal, it’s only right for the victim (the lady in New York) to receive just compensation. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to live in a world where folks who break the law have fancified notions of what they can get away with. Law & Order! We must Keep our Country Safe!
This....
Or we simply acknowledge that Law has failed completely and we start letting people settle their own matters/problems as they see fit seeking compensation from those who have wronged them.
by Saiwana » Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:06 am
Ifreann wrote:Fox News has made me afraid of immigrants somehow taking legal possession of my house, therefore we must abandon the idea of law entirely and return(or perhaps RETVRN) to bellum omnia contra omnes.
by Ifreann » Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:25 am
Saiwana wrote:Ifreann wrote:Fox News has made me afraid of immigrants somehow taking legal possession of my house, therefore we must abandon the idea of law entirely and return(or perhaps RETVRN) to bellum omnia contra omnes.
What is there not to be afraid of? There is clear footage of migrants breaking through the border wall and knocking down guards in El Paso and some Venezuelan proposing a mass squatting/home invasion ring as a business opportunity.
by Trump Almighty » Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:50 pm
Ifreann wrote:Paddy O Fernature wrote:
This....
Or we simply acknowledge that Law has failed completely and we start letting people settle their own matters/problems as they see fit seeking compensation from those who have wronged them.
Fox News has made me afraid of immigrants somehow taking legal possession of my house, therefore we must abandon the idea of law entirely and return(or perhaps RETVRN) to bellum omnia contra omnes.
by Immoren » Sat Mar 23, 2024 2:57 pm
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Trump Almighty » Sat Mar 23, 2024 3:02 pm
by Paddy O Fernature » Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:56 am
Immoren wrote:Right of Conquest for squatters
by Krasny-Volny » Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:37 am
by Saiwana » Sun Mar 24, 2024 9:57 am
Krasny-Volny wrote:In my opinion the new property owners should be bound by the terms of the agreements the previous property owner (in this case, the government) made with the residents - especially considering the long term of residence.
by Durius » Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:02 am
by Ifreann » Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:08 am
Saiwana wrote:Krasny-Volny wrote:In my opinion the new property owners should be bound by the terms of the agreements the previous property owner (in this case, the government) made with the residents - especially considering the long term of residence.
What is the incentive to buy, improve on, or invest in a government owned property if there was full knowledge that it comes attached with tenants that are protected by an unfavorable lease? The point of buying real estate is usually to be able to do as you want with the property/land within reason. The state effectively won't be able to get rid of the real estate if nobody wants to buy it if the downsides outweigh any upside.
The buyer can perhaps pay a settlement to the tenants but it should be made clear that in exchange for any compensation, they do have to leave permanently for somewhere else or accept the original lease being null and void.
by Saiwana » Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:10 am
Durius wrote:In general I'm against, but I have to recognize it would help attenuate the housing crisis in Europe. It's rather idiotic that, despite declining populations, there are still not enough houses for young people to buy at affordable prices.
by Saiwana » Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:13 am
Ifreann wrote:This is why there's things like squatter's rights. Because profit-seeking enterprises will ruin society to make a buck if we don't stop them. And they will tell you scary stories about evil foreigners coming to steal your house to convince you to let them ruin society, and apparently a bunch of you people will fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.
by Ifreann » Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:20 am
Saiwana wrote:Ifreann wrote:This is why there's things like squatter's rights. Because profit-seeking enterprises will ruin society to make a buck if we don't stop them. And they will tell you scary stories about evil foreigners coming to steal your house to convince you to let them ruin society, and apparently a bunch of you people will fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.
I'd prefer for property rights to be protected and respected, than to live where a bunch of low lives can just move in whenever they want just because you're absent for any short length of time or they don't have money and didn't work for it but you did and have money.
by Dogmeat » Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:47 am
Saiwana wrote:Ifreann wrote:This is why there's things like squatter's rights. Because profit-seeking enterprises will ruin society to make a buck if we don't stop them. And they will tell you scary stories about evil foreigners coming to steal your house to convince you to let them ruin society, and apparently a bunch of you people will fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.
I'd prefer for property rights to be protected and respected, than to live where people can just move in whenever they want just because you're absent for any short length of time or they don't have money and didn't work for it but you did and have money.
by Immoren » Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:10 am
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Durius » Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:56 am
Saiwana wrote:Durius wrote:In general I'm against, but I have to recognize it would help attenuate the housing crisis in Europe. It's rather idiotic that, despite declining populations, there are still not enough houses for young people to buy at affordable prices.
If the immigration wasn't let in and Europe was more of a closed society/region like Japan is, perhaps they'd have more resources for themselves to reutilize?
by Port Carverton » Sun Mar 24, 2024 4:16 pm
Dogmeat wrote:Saiwana wrote:
I'd prefer for property rights to be protected and respected, than to live where people can just move in whenever they want just because you're absent for any short length of time or they don't have money and didn't work for it but you did and have money.
But the squatters need lebensraum. Surely you should support them.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Imperializt Russia, Kannap, Spirit of Hope, Tungstan, Valrifall
Advertisement