Agree or disagree with this statement

...

Better stop propping up property prices so people can legally own their residence

Most squatters in the US take over military homes. When the military person is overseas for a few months the squatters take over. It's really fucked up.

Agree.

Housing market is global scum and I'd rather someone use it than a bourgeoisie scum just holding onto empty buildings

of course

>being a nigger
no thanks

No, if you want to use something, pay for it you fucking commie scum

Well someone owns it so no. When the housing bubble burst again I hope the US let's it fix its self this time so these house are cheaper and people can afford them.

In France, you can't evict a squatter after 48 hours. So you get plenty of people who own apartments, but can't rent them to anyone because it's occupied by squatters, because it has become legal for them to be here.

Not an argument

Maybe you could get a 300lb+ rugged gentleman to kindly convince them to leave??

It is an argument you brain dead moron.

If you're not paying for housing (squatting) then you have to right to use it.

I would rather it be empty than filled with garbage

That's fucking retarded.

Technically no harm done, but most of the time they shit the place up horribly, and then claim it as their own. I wouldn't have a problem if squatters fixed up hold homes and freely handed them back to their owners when they arrived, but we all know that would never happen, and that's completely ignoring all thr property rights questions that arise from this.

A person who is not using their home should be able to legally declare that their home is free to be squatted at their own risk. Let the home owners decide for themselves instead of asking the government to strip them of their rights.

Agree. Tax Land not Man

wrong

Never said people have no right to use land.

All people have that right if they pay for it instead of being a bunch of free loading asshats

Go post your commie faggot shit on cnn

>Never said people have no right to use land.
>have that right if they pay for it
>have to pay for rights

also im a capitalist

So by your logic a hotels should just be free for anyone to go stay in?

You do not have a right to devalue my property and take away my rights just to squat in my home because you feel you have some "right" to be handed everything without working for it.

You're not a capitalist. You are a fucking moron.

yes

A home is going to rot whether you squat in it or not.

And if you're squatting in a house, I guaran-fuckin-tee you're not doing anything to prolong, treat, or stop any rotting process.

Fuck leftist.
Fuck liberals.

Sage

I make the classical liberal distinction between land, labor and capital.

I believe in the private possession of land without interference from the state, but in the community collection of land rent to prevent monopolization of land.

ahahahahahaha

You're nothing but another dipshit leftist commie. Have fun with your shit thread you posted while stealing someone elses wifi you faggot

Going to assume you are some flavor of libertarian or natsoc that views your affilation as the "party of principle," and base property rights on the principle that everyone is entitled to the fruits of his labor.

To me land, is not the fruit of anyone's labor, and our system of land tenure is based not on labor, but on decrees of privilege issued from the state, called titles. In fact, the term "real estate" is Middle English (originally French) for "royal state." The "title" to land is the essence of the title of nobility, and the root of noble privilege.

The royal free lunch

quite fooling yourself. You're the socialist here not me

So according to you, land becomes private property when one mixes one's labor with it? And that mixing what is yours with what is not yours in order to own the whole thing is a just way to pursue riches .

that notion is filled with problems. How much labor does it take to claim land, and how much land can one claim for that labor? And for how long can one make that claim?

According to me and classic liberals, land belonged to the user for as long as the land was being used, and no longer.

But according to you, land belongs to the first user, forever? So, do the oceans belong to the heirs of the first person to take a fish out or put a boat in? Does someone who plows the same field each year own only one field, while someone who plows a different field each year owns dozens of fields? Should the builder of the first transcontinental railroad own the continent? Shouldn't we at least have to pay a toll to cross the tracks?
Are there no common rights to the earth at all?

To you there are not, but classical liberals recognized that unlimited ownership of land never flowed from use, but from the state

More importantly, the liberal notion is to grant everyone the right to property by establishing some lands as “commons” that can therefore be improved and subdivided for efficient use. The notion of the commons is not aimed at creating “communism.” That is a European notion, and when combined with Leninist State control, one that is extremely destructive. The liberal notion is that nobility is something to be limited and opposed, not out of fear, jealousy or vengeance, but simply to ensure that everyone has an equal right to make a living, acquire property and enjoy the fruits of their labor

If no one lives there, and the squatter does no harm, I don't see a problem with someone who can't afford there own place staying until a paying resident is found. It might actually help people get back on their feet to havea clean and dry place to sleep and get a power connection/shower. Maybe charge small utilities. IT would be nice if that was a government program or something,