How do you guys feel about this? It’s very interesting to me that the neighbors want him to stay in the community, but I do believe that he should have to pay for the house if the woman who owns it and has been paying to upkeep it. I mean, the outside of the cottage really isn’t so bad. I wish they showed a picture of the inside of the house and whether they woman ever planned to go back. Overall, I believe he should have to pay.
The man has a case. That is really all that can be said, it really is a legal issue to its own court of law, but the man utilized land that was deemed unutilized for decades by a significant enough portion of people within the community. It is cases like this that ought to show the elasticity of homesteading and a desire for decentralized law.
I honestly have no opinion how the case ought to go, because it doesn’t effect me in the slightest, but it seems the man has a case.
People need to respect property rights, the man should pay. Cased closed. But, in my opinion, this opens up a whole new question: Should the government force this man to pay up, when it seems the majority of his neighbors don’t mind his continuing existence in the community and, as a result, disrespects the owners property rights? As an anarcho-capitalist, this puts me in an awkward situation.
well government forcing him to pay isnt the issue… the property owner does not want him there, since courts and police are monopolized, she has to depend on the State to enforce her right to property. But it says in the article that he is willing to pay rent, the landowner still does not want him there
This case really depends on what constitutes “abandonment”, so the fact may be that she really didn’t own the home.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
well government forcing him to pay isnt the issue…
[/quote]
Hypothetically speaking of course.
I would have to say that it doesn’t matter at all what the neighbors want. Mob rule doesn’t determine right and wrong and it sure as hell doesn’t assign property rights to anyone. I’ll agree that it is a complex case, but public sentiment certainly should determine the issue. Otherwise socialism is valid since it hinges on “public” sentiment regarding property rights. I wouldn’t say the guy has much of a case on principle based on the fact that the owners were known to all the parties involved. The article mentions directly contacting them to ask them to fix up the property. So it seems like the whole squatting attempt was essentially a subterfuge. The guy says he’s willing to pay rent but wasn’t willing to contact the owners through known methods to try to arrange it BEFORE squatting the property? The owners are essentially stating that they view the property as a monument to a deceased family member. So the assertion by the community seems to be monuments are only allowed if everyone like how they look and there isn’t any pressing need in the collective opinion? Oh and if the guy who wants the property is a nice guy and the owners are assholes that you don’t see everyday then that changes things as well? Its not exactly abandoned if everyone in the local area has ready contact with the owners who state an explicit reason for the condition of the property.
Looks to me like he homesteaded it, but to all the people saying this is “socialism”, how long to you think a house has to be abandoned before it becomes squattable? 40 years? 50? 60?
This is not homesteading because the house is already owned, and the property owner has proof that it is hers. This does not constitute as abandonment because clearly the property is worth something to the property owner, or else she wouldn’t be taking that person to court.
"The whole purpose of homesteading is to bring hitherto unowned virgin tenitory into private property ownership… What about notification? Must the man who wishes to abandon the interior portion of his land nohfy others of his act? Yes. And this follows not from any positive obligation whatsoever, but rather from the logical implication of what it means to abandon something. You cannot (logically) abandon something if you do not notify others of its availability for their own ownership. At most, if you do not undertake any notification, you have not abandoned it, but rather are simply the absentee owner over it. " -Walter Block
If it’s abandoned then the owner wouldn’t taking the guy to court, now would he? When I think of abandoned I think of something that someone doesn’t want. The owner may not be present, but that doesn’t make it abandoned.
America has its share of issues, but thank God insane squatting rulings aren’t among them.
^This. Danny’s thread really drove the case home for myself, and probably others, that the solution to this is not deontological.
@mikachusetts, just because one isnt present in their property does not mean they have abandoned it… this is a clear violation of private property
Izzy,
I never claimed anything about abandonment or property rights, in fact, I completely agree with you that it is a violation of private property. So what? I was merely agreeing with William that a decentralized legal order is the best someone like me can argue for without making assumptions for what is the “correct” solution. Personally, I think the owner should recognize that the squatter has increased the value of her property, and work a deal with him.
This is the Block article that I got my quotes from
Abandonment
Let us take another crack at this donut shaped land scenario from a somewhat different perspective. This time, we will assume not that the owner homesteads only a donut shaped parcel, surrounding unowned land, but rather, say, a solid holdmg of five square miles. Now, however, he wishes to abandon an interior area of one square mile, and to retain ownership rights over only the remaining donut shaped parcel. As we have win from the previous analysis, he must now allow access through the land he still owns; this follows from the fact that he has abandoned the central piece of his land, and if this is truly to be abandoned, it must now be homesteadable. If it is not, this violates the libertarian axiom to the effect that all land must in principle be available for ownership. Nor can the non owner be prevented from reaching ownership status through forestalling. But this interior piece of land can only be homesteadable if the owner of the donut shaped parcel allows other would be owners of his abandoned land access to this interior territory. If he does not allow them this access, he is guilty of the crime of forestalling.
What about notification? Must the man who wishes to abandon the interior portion of his land nohfy others of his act? Yes. And this follows not from any positive obligation whatsoever, but rather from the logical implication of what it means to abandon something. You cannot (logically) abandon something if you do not notify others of its availability for their own ownership. At most, if you do not undertake any notification, you have not abandoned it, but rather are simply the absentee owner over it. Suppose you leave your old sweater in your closet You never wear it any more. But you do not give it to the local Good Will organization, nor do you sell it, nor do you do anything with it except possibly amtemplate it from time to time. Have you (truly) abandoned it? You have not Instead, you are still the owner of it, and are (temporarily, for the moment, even for the rest of your life) not using it any more. You have, in a word, not yet succeeded in abandoning it. In other words, abandoning property is not something you can attain merely by wishing for it merely by no longer using it; merely by no longer exercising the tradition ownership rights over it. No. In order to suceed in fully or truly abandoning your property, you must take two steps: first, you must notify others that you have indeed abandoned your property, and second, you must not set up roadblocks preventing others from homesteading your now abandoned property. If you do not accord your actions with both of these requirementi, it cannot be said of you that you have successfully engaged in an abandonment of your property.
The whole point of the exercise is to get virgin territory into the hands of people so that it can be used The latter is ever so much more important than the former, so much so that as long as the former does not undermine the latter, it is no exaggeration to say that it almost doesn’t matter how this is accomplished, as long as it is accomplished.
Abandoning land or goods without telling anyone about it is thus anundermining of this goal. For what is the point of having a theory of the process of converting unowned into owned property if it can all be made null and void through a choice such as abandonment. Therefore, just as forestalling is illegitimate since it undermines the process, so does this apply to abandoning property without notification. This is not a positive obligation. Rather, it is part and parcel of the right/responsibilities of owning property in the first place. Just as the owner of the land donut has to allow physical egress through what would otherwise be considered his property since he would otherwise be engaged in land forestalling, so must he allow “mental egress” through the miasma of lack of information (e.g. he must notify someone (e.g. a land registry, title search (see Rothbard, 1998, p. 65) company) that he is abandoning land).
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf
If I have an old sweater not donated that I don’t wear and somene steals it… whatever. Have fun with it
If I have an old sweater not donated that I don’t wear but I want to keep for sentimental reasons and someone steals it…
Epicurus, your post makes assumptions about the owner’s valuation of the property.
Exactly. If that old sweater belonged to your grandfather, and he wore it while he fought in WWII or something, it becomes an entirely different story. There are neighbors with houses that look much worse than that house, and people live in them every day of their lives and are fine.
The mob of an anarchist society can be as bad as the government of a statist society.
An entrepreneur is not a very good one if he expects a piece of paper, or theoretical concept of ownership to be able to hold property. The customs of (be it legal or other) and the ability to utilize and hold land are the appropriate calculations needed for a business venture to be successful. One is always operating their power within higher “consenting” powers (be it the community, the sun, gravity, mortality, the law, or whatever). So long as the people are tied to the consequences of their actions, the ability to recognize wealth creation, and foster a positive environment for wealth creation will increase. .
There is no guarantee how this will hold or look in the manner of property ownership. There is no way to say if some derelict piece of property was “good” or “bad” for those to whom actually had the power to affect it (the community, the courts, the squatter, and the landlord) it is beyond our capacity to make such judgments. Once again, this ought to show the obviousness of decentralized law.
@ William,
Just because that lady is not a good entrepreneur doesnt mean that we can just take away her property