Talk:Squatter's rights

	This Law related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Mission

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

-Hastur! (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe under #2. That's the only hope for this article-Hastur! (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

So far, 2, 3, and 4 Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean this obeys the mission statement more than 50% of articles on RW, including the property article. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

NTF is right, it's good - wants a bit of fleshing out and internationalization but ... Scream!! (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, yea it'll be fleshed out more, hence draft. Also will include more countries, starting with Mexico probably as they allegedly have a unique set of laws on this Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) it can come under 2, 3, and 4. you have various politically squats, the most reason i can think is seattle during blm protest. made big news. you have urban squatting shantytowns and their removals. you have homesteaders and range wars, stuff to do with commons, squatting m the developing world, in the us, in europe, in former communist countries, you have soveriegn citizens, you have gypsies on the village green, media calling the residents of the jungle in calais rapists, who owns the land?, whose a crook and whose just trying to get by, evictions of travellers, environmental activists living in trees, native americans on alacatraz. the bonus army getting tear gassed, uncontacted tribes murdered by loggers. your moral rights vs legal ones

you could do it poorly, but even then there is loads of scope surrounding squatters (we can rop the rights bit from the title imho, unless you want to limit the scope substantially) AMassiveGay (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

not actually difficult to 2, 3, and 4 on most subjects to be honest. is only really science where you are more restricted on topics, but even then, bit of imagination who knows? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Usually when it comes to the mission, we normally only nuke stuff if it's blatantly off-mission. For non-science matters that usually just refers to pointless gossip. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ How the fuck is squatter's rights a "crank idea?" — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure who this is addressed to. This article explores crank ideas surrounding the debate in squatters rights. As it's a topic people use to exert authoritarianism over land as well as use weasel words and authoritarian attitudes used to oppress squatters Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It will go further into detail about authoritarian attitudes about land, arguably the most important topic involving authoritarianism, along with various media commentary/coverage of the topicNeiltyson1fan (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

all squaters do is break in Vortex (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh you were talking to Hastur, yea I dunno Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems on-mission to me. Although, I am begging you to format your citations before putting this in mainspace. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

no problem Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

And please use the preview button. Your frenetic pattern of editing can get a bit annoying at times, especially given all the constant edit-conflicts that make it harder for other people to contribute. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See what I'm planning} 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

if you want squatting crankery look no further than seattle circa blm protests pre covid. (pre covid? can you remember such days?) crankery abound from everyside and every source upto and including ex pres fuck face themselves. misinformation, bare faced lies, partisan media and conniving police and politicians manipulating events engineered to go tits up so they could reimpose the law with cracking the skulls of the naive kids put on the spot and suckered into taking the responsibility for a situation unstable from the outset and completely unplanned or prepared for. the archives of the saloon with give you a glimpse of the range and depth of crankery on display, with events highlighting the obvious and uncontroversial short comings/the coming terror of ideologies applied to those involved but had only vague affiliation. it was all over in days, but so much press, so much misinformation and bare faced lies in such short period, you were still picking out the nuggets of truth from the steaming turds of news media, long after it had been done with, that no one thought it was just bunch of unprepared kids out of their depth forced into a sitution magnified and destabilised by the media focus and was never the plan for protest for anyone, as police stepped back from the bad pr police violence was getting, knowing it would collapse in day or two, with protesters requesting the aid the police they had just been fighting. it as a microcosm of the us all concentrated in a small space for a few days. it was all things to all people and everyone else was wrong. i still maintain squatters rights as a title or primary focus and has limited depth restricting coverage to little more than the varying degrees of legality in varying districts over a questions of occupancy with little notability or importance. whereas the focus of squatting in general with its many forms and many proponents and opponents with opinion subjectively held with subjective strength depending on who what why when one example is contentious and another to be lauded has much more scope. occupying a building or tract of land for political purpose or highlight a cause is no really a question of property vs squatter rights for example, but means for attention. even when undertaken the specific rights that exist is of less interest here than the implications it might have in society at large. its criminal according to landowners, a necessary response to inequality to hippies and the poor, while israelis and palestinians likely to be intractably opposed to one and other on the subject. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that @Hastur understands the missional criteria in a pretty rigid, black and white fashion....which I find to be quite concerning. The missional criteria are deliberately vague and imprecise! Indeed, they serve as guidelines, which are vague insofar as they reflect the subtlety and flexibility which is needed, in order for them to be adaptable to a complex world. Whether or not something fits the mission statement, is usually a matter of degree as opposed to there existing a rigid-demarcation criterion i.e. a procedure for deciding between missional and non-missional content. It seems entirely plausible that something that is prima-facie ridiculous, in relation to the mission, could nevertheless fit the criteria, for example 'topiary' could be subject to crank beliefs or pseudoscientific beliefs; ofc whether or not this has actually occurred is another matter entirely. Moreover, due to its indirect nature, it may well be pointless, and 'grasping at straws' so to speak, trying to connect it where it is neither worth the effort (when other items could do the job more efficaciously) nor interesting enough to warrant the effort. Now for a bit of shameless self-promotion: if you are willing to read more about my views on the missional statement - I direct you towards 'Absurdism' and the mission statement wherein I have provided a more detailed discussion of the mission statement. →Leucippus 14:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Debate?

Are we also going to have our debates on what should be squatters' rights? E.g., how long after a property is "abandoned", what rights the owners should have in evicting squatters, etc? Cortez (chat) 22:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This article takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive stance. The years are outlined in the law. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Basically, hardly anyone knows what squatters rights are leading to people claiming it either doesn't exist or that they have it just by trespassing. Providing a definition in the context of misuse of the term is enough, altho you are free to add whatever Neiltyson1fan (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

morality

Do you think this article could do with a section on morality? From most reasonable perspectives squatting is immoral but it might be interesting to capture alternative viewpoints too. Might be something I work on. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

a blanket statement of squatting being immoral is meanlingless nonsense when removed entirely form any kind of context. there dozens of differing forms of squatting, carried out by different people, fr a variety of different reasons. some might be immoral if you must moralise, many cases are will be more about necessity, a few will be as political statement of some kind, and some maybe be officially encouraged and tolerated by authorities.

if squatting is immoral, give me examples and explain to me why those example are immoral. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"Most reasonable perspectives." That doesn't seem like a baseless assertion at all.... — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kauri0.o maybe directly citing those who believe in the morality of squatter's rights (and there's quite a few) would be the most wiki-ish way to go Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it is equivalent to theft. Under most moral systems, theft is immoral (except in particular circumstances such as starvation, but in most circumstances homelessness is not immediately life-threatening). Maybe it should be named "Ethicality". Anyway, just a thought. The crackpot-side of this subject is a lot more interesting. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever considered the notion that property itself is theft? Morality is a cop in your head that can and will be used to justify power structures. Stop punching down, start punching up. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, if you actually think that's a legitimate objection to squatting, get out of the room. If squatting is theft, then taxation (and rent) is theft. You're forcibly chunking away your property on threat of violence and imprisonment either way with taxation. Appropriating an abandoned, run down house that's kept abandoned to artificially inflate property values is in no way morally equivalent to the system of property distribution that breeds land inequity and homelessness in the first place. Property is theft in the first place, as Proudhon himself put it. The very notion of land ownership excludes the vast majority of people, modern day property theory was invented ad hoc to justify the seizures of the commons in early modern England. Your "property" was either seized from the indigenous at gunpoint or parceled out of the commons via fiat, either way it's still theft. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

equivalent to theft? not in the case of the homeless people squatting in empty properties. the owner of the property is still the owner, and they werent currently using the property if squatter where able to set up there. the squatters are borrowing it for a while. even if i were to agree it is akin to theft, most squatters squat due to necessity. as for 'not life threatening', do you think sleeping rough is just a minor inconvenience? i can only imagine you live in a warmer climate, in my neck of a woods a heavy frost can kill and we dont have particularly cold weather, not lie canada for example. google homeless die in the winter. even on a warm night, you'd wake soaking wet from the morning dew. homeless people have change their bedding - sleeping bags - regularly because it literaly rots after a couple weeks of that. health can be ruined by prolonged bouts on the street, alway damp, always cold. and thats just the elements. the homeless are at significant threat from violence, young or female rough sleepers at threat from sexual violence. homelessness people lives are perpetually threatened. squatting in an otherwise vacant property is surely a lesser evil if think it the owner is being deprived of something.

in the developed world, there should not be homelessness or the need to squat. in london where i live, we've had a housing crisis for decades as governments continually fail to replace affordable housing sold off since 80s so there are long lists to house for finding themselves homeless, so for many are forced into sleeping rough. but there are thousands of properties vacant all over london. office blocks just sitting empty. luxery flats too, but squatting is illegal in residential properties. commercial lots sitting vacant. the owners often have no plans to do anything with them, just siting on them waiting for property values to rise. there about 8000 homeless people in london while properties are vacant. why shouldnt people squat in these properties if the owners are doing fuck all with them? how is it theft if a property gets squatters? the owner hasnt lost anything. not that getting squatters is likely in most of these places. they are boarded up tight with round the clock security keeping people out. paying to stop people getting in. squatters could do that for free - its essentially what property guardianship is.

squatting is not immoral. criminalising it is immoral. the greed and political inertia that make it a necessity are immoral. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing, I agree with you. I'm criticizing the notion that it is immoral. That's a foolish and frankly privileged way of looking at things. I don't agree squatting is equivalent to theft. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

i was responding to the op not your post. but yeh, there is an ignorance of the realities of rough sleeping . but hows this for immoral a man froze to death in the doorway of an empty bungalow after residential squatting was criminalised. that there is immoral. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I agree with AMG in that if Kauri0.o can provide sources and decent arguments, then I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to add to this article. If you're in disagreement with his edits then - ofc continue debating on the talk page. This wiki welcomes a plethora of views. §Leucippus 12:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

just an addition to what i've already said - the vast majority of squatters exist in the developing world - squats taking the form of shanty towns, or favelas and the like. difficult to see how they are immoral or equivalent to theft and not born out of necessity AMassiveGay (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have time to look for more sources at the minute, but this was a great article about it, p50-56 being particularly notable.

As an aside, "taxation (and rent) is theft" invokes Poe's Law. I genuinely can't tell if you're serious. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

please explain how that article on adverse possession make squatting equivalent to theft or is immoral in some way for the example of the homeless occupying a vacant and unused property out of necessity, with adverse possession not even being considered or indeed examples of squatting that we can consider immoral for whatever reason.

please be aware adverse possession is not squatting. most cases of adverse possession deal with boundary lines, with the hurdles required for a squatter to actually succeed in adverse possession so slim its not a consideration for the supposed immorality of squatting.

you say you've not the time to look for more sources right now, but the claim 'equivalence to theft' must be have come from of notion of what squats are and how they come about, perhaps a specific variant you'd imagined was more widespread than it is, or a misconception on their nature, or a popular assumption you've not really considered the veracity of before, or perhaps something ive not considered and am missing from the equation. just walk me through in simple english where the theft in squatting lies. theres theft in the sovereign citizens example in the article, though i maintain that isnt squatting as they are claiming legal ownership from forged deeds, not claiming squatters rights so just enacting fraud. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Kauri0.o - When you say "Because it is equivalent to theft" and "Under most moral systems, theft is immoral (except in particular circumstances such as starvation, but in most circumstances homelessness is not immediately life-threatening)", at first blush, your syllogism:

1. Under most moral systems theft is immoral
2. Squatting is equivalent to theft
3. Therefore squatting is immoral

appears to present an incredibly rigid conception of morality and an exceptional deficit in empathy i.e. only in extreme cases such as starvation, will you allow squatting moral legitimacy.

Formal analysis

But for the sake of argument - from a formal point of view your use of "but" (a coordinating conjunction) affirms a separate conjunct i.e. "it is the case that homelessness is not immediately life threatening", the conjunction of this with the previous clause regarding starvation, is valid just in case both conjuncts are true; ergo you need to demonstrate this by appealing to facts under a particular interpretation. In addition, your proposition "squatting is equivalent to theft" needs to be clarified: your sense of the word 'equivalence' i.e. are you defining it as an isomorphism or are you instead pursuing synonymy (which is undeniably problematic). Again your "under most moral systems" is making an existential claim, which amounts to: for some moral systems (but not all) theft is immoral. The validity of your syllogism depends on your second premise's claim about squatting being equivalent to theft, or formally p≈q. Now from a semantic/metalogical perspective, I believe, your argument falls apart. The following terms: "moral-systems", "theft", "morality" (and its negation), "Squatting", are all vague definiendums or explicandums in need of definition or explication. Without this I see no hope for establishment of logical validity and/or soundness.

What you meant

I may be interpreting your statements in a way that violates Grice's razor i.e. Focussing on purely semantic features as opposed to focussing on what you actually meant or intended. I may have simply bastardised your argument. Within the context of the talk-page discussions (with a sprinkling of charitable interpretation) you seem to be implying that from a literal understanding of current legislation - squatting is immoral, and it would be worth exploring this avenue; understanding the "crankery" from your point of view may involve understanding how some people can deny or twist simple 'brute-facts' to suit their own agendas. This doesn't mean that you sincerely believe that squatting is immoral, but perhaps that it is worth elucidating just why it could be considered immoral.

The Urgency of Empathy

By and large I am in agreement with AMG. Squatting is not immoral. In fact my first thought upon reading Kauri0.o's comments was "how hilariously naïve you are". NO so-called developed country should have squatting or homelessness-this is not a utopian idea! The issues surrounding 'squatting' deserve a better article! No, scratch that, they demand a better article! I know that I'm not alone in insisting that empathy be taken seriously here, unlike I fear, a certain editor. →Leucippus 23:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The international angle

... should be considered - eg [1] - and where do protests such as [2] fit into the narrative? Anna Livia (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Rn there's a small section in the article about how massive poverty can lead to informal settlements, and cites a Philippines settlement. That would be a good place to add that stuff imo Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

that section is a little misleading as it describes a compromise by authorities in manila to not evict an 'informal settlement' or arrest squatters. thats not the compromise made, noone was going to arrested. the relocation within manila was the compromise, one unnecessary for most other shanties around the world who dont make any effort at all to evict shanty dwellers or arrest them. it would have been likely to remain so in manila too, but for flooding in the area caused almost a 1000 deaths. the shanty dwellers were not against this, but the effort by the government in doing so was to relocate them from the city. thats the compromise - to relocate them in the same city instead of out of the area entirely, and they getting all the utilities that are usually absent from shanties.

shanty towns are usually too vast housing hundreds of thousands of people. local authorities are in no position to evict those kind of numbers and it be nothing short of a humanitarian disaster. a mixture of the residents, NGOs, the local government gradually add utilities and improvements making such communities more and more permanent. bear in mind up to 80% of a cities population can be housed in shanty towns in some parts of the world. they not a rarity they are a everywhere in the developing world. its only really china who have demolished shanty towns before the beijing olympics. visible indications of poverty was not in keeping with what chin wanted to project.

i'd also be wary of referring to the developing world as 'poor countries'. developing world as a term is not without it issues, but poor countries more so. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

while we talking international, the us-centric focus is a little too us focused, even if planning to add stuff in at a later date. its always going to look 'this the situation in the us, oh there other countries exist too' its late out not via location but various issues around squatting each really only focused on how things are generally done in the us, an when to referring to other locales it just kind a makes thing confusing. things are done the same in europe or the us the uk etc. you cant easily lump them in together as if they are, but the format doesnt make it easy to seperate.

and the article title and focus i have issue with, more belowAMassiveGay (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

stolen land

the article refers to stolen land, or stolen property a couple of times. this is misleading as no land or property has been stolen. it is occupied squatters not stolen. in the rarity of adverse possession, its not been stolen but legally acquired. tresspass is the crime squatters would be prosecuted under, where such laws exist AMassiveGay (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's basically correct. The idea behind adverse possession/squatter's rights as I understand it is that the property has been abandoned (typically long-term non-payment of property taxes by the owner of record), and a squatter that actually regularly pays the taxes thereby gains the rightful ownership. Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

title and focus

the focus on squatters rights is imho very limiting in the scope of the article that does not readily deal with the isues of squatting, the different kinds of squatting, and the assorted reasoning for the practice. it puts an emphasis on the legal position of squatting which is varied throughout the globe, but doesnt make a particularly interesting article. what is or isnt legal in given location is trivially easy to sum up, and not really understanding such laws is not really a central concern with squatting is most parts of the world for most people. the central issues are why squatting exists, its forms, who is squatting, where and why they squatting. then there is reactions to squatting by authorities, validity of laws criminalising squatting, official and public opinions and possible solutions or trouble ahead.

article just isnt structured in way to easily add to along the lines i just described, and again, the us centric approach of the article makes it look like anathema and bizarre throwback to yesteryear, when for much of the world is commonplace, even in the uk its always been a feature of urban life only recently laws criminalising some forms of it. the situation within us not relevent to any where else in world, but end with an article where the pecularities of the an american approach presented as the norm instead of an outlier. its not even a uniform situation in the us itself, with variance state to state, that nature of the squat and squatter and throughout us history.

i propose a name change for the article to 'squatting' and shift in focus to squatting in general rather legal issue.maybe start with an overview of the kind of squatting or way of categorising distinct area, then go into more deph for each one, ad then see how it to grow in a logical way. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have much to add, just wanted to second what you’ve said. As you’re essentially proposing a rewrite, you might want to start off in draftspace and merge the two when you’re done, @Neiltyson1fan might have something to say about it as well. Christopher (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There's more room for more of an international component, yes definitely go ahead and add it with sources. I included an international component but the laws don't seem to vary dramatically by country after looking into it, as far as the countries people read this wiki from. There's a fairly large section about why squatting exists. Validity is dependent on subjective morality, and you can see the section above about that. If you want to expand the article, no one is against that so go ahead. This is a site where multiple people can add their own knowledge, I don't have all the answers on the subject so go ahead. A name change would broaden the article too much, and would advise against stuffing the lede, as RW has an annoying habit of considering 6 paragraph ledes as good. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In general there seems to be a lot of people wanting to put more of their own morality or prescriptiveness in the article, but that'd probably not last long and make the article a battleground. Morality and prescriptiveness isn't particularly wiki-ish in general. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Another thing I would avoid would be huge paragraphs that aren't cited. This article has 24 citations for a medium-small article to avoid edit wars on a controversial topic, so please if you add more don't add big editorializing or moralizing paragraphs with no or few sources. Cuz then you'll get the 'squatting is immoral theft' guys edit warring you, there's at least 2 of them on this talk page already. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)