When police say that something is a "civil matter". What they mean is that it is not a crime against the state. The police now serve the state and all crime is against the state, or its not a crime at all. Government no longer serves to secure our natural, unalienable rights, but serve their own interests only. Crimes are against the state, restitution and fines are made to the state, jail time and prison time are punishments for crimes against the state.
If people are left to deal with "civil matters" on their own, using their own personal resources, we can expect a resurgence in vigilantism and backyard justice.
One thing that amazes me is how obvious everything you just said is, and yet how I never figured it out on my own. I have been reading others (Hoppe, et al) saying it for the last two years, and every time, I'm like, "How did I not see that. it is so clear. The system has no interest in protecting us at all. It/they don't even see us as having been the victims!"
It dawned on me from experience. My son's unmanned car was hit in a parking lot by a guy who drove away afterwards. His car suffered significant damage. The driver was later found due to security camera footage and the driver was eventually charged with driving without insurance. When my son asked "what about my car?", he was told that since no one was in the car during the accident, his only course of action was to file a civil suit. Essentially, the state made the claim that they were the only criminal victims of the event.
Fines are paid to the state, not the victim. Victims pay for police protection (but the police do not actually protect them). Victims pay for police investigation and apprehension. They pay for the trial and they pay for incarceration. At no time are they made whole in any way. It isn't even considered. Instead, it is said that the criminal is paying his debt "to society."
Oh goodness, this is not so much an anger issue as a time issue. (I write and answer comments more than full time.) I take it this person was wrongly imprisoned and treated terribly?
Since you have a right to face your accuser, and since all cases are the State of WA for example, vs Joe Blow, I guess the accused needs to demand "the state" appear for cross examination.
I have come to the conclusion that the Global Predator Parasites which Control most all governments, even down to the local town level, objective is to cause as much pain and suffering as possible! Clearly they thrive from the energy released by those suffering! A few examples:
1. Modern Wars on civilians. Millions of innocent mostly defenseless women and children genocided. Gaza, Iraq, Libya etc. Even many of the operatives, who still have a consciousness, in the Israeli, US, NATO militaries suffer horribly over the damage done to humanity. Suffering from the genocided and from some of the perpetrators.
2. Migrant Crisis. Millions of humans uprooted from their homes and culture to go thousands of miles where the day will likely come where because of the crimes perpetrated by some all will be blamed, Martial Law Enacted and they will be horribly persecuted. Most of the people of the host country will suffer from the lawlessness, squatting etc. Again suffering from both sides.
3. Black vs White, Asian vs Black, Right vs Left, Jew vs Muslim, Christian vs Muslim, LGBTQ vs Straight and on and on even sporting events. Imagine how much energy is lost even during a sporting event.
The Predator/Parasites are Ghouls who live off the Emotional Energy of both sides of any war, issue, sporting event etc.
Soon the Predator/Parasite/Ghouls and their Masters will have no more Energy to suck!
Right Chris but how do we not get angry at what they are doing to us?
Consider Covid and the Bioweapon Jab: Clearly it was a US Department of Defense Project. Caused the Pandemic and all its ridiculous rules (6 foot, masks, dancing nurses, no early treatment, no Ivermectin) and all the Genocide and health issues that caused as well as psychological and financial harm.
Its not just about the money because the Predator/Parasites Control and print money and charge interest on it (zeros on a screen nowadays) Federal Reserve/Rothschilds, Warburgs etc. Its about stealing Emotional Energy from people, animals etc which has a deleterious effect on our Spirits.
Florida is about to end this insanity today, a bill to remove squatters "rights" is on the Florida governors desk and there is a 100% chance he will sign it into law. I love Florida so much.
I had a rental building in Vancouver. Nice building good tenants. I had 47 suites and had 29 children in the building. A suite was rented to a guy whom the tenants told me was a drug dealer and had people, bad people, coming and going and making noise all through the night. I went to rent review commission to see how I could evict him. They said if be pays his rent I can’t evict him unless the police got involved. I call the VPD. They are useless. I went back to the Dads who had told me of the problem. I said I would work on it, and in the meantime I needed proof to get to the police. I was back a week later and saw 3 or 4 dads. They said ‘305 is gone’. I said ‘really? How did that happen?’ They had had a conversation with the guy. 3 am, lots of noise, waking up children and guys who to work the next day. They ‘conversed’ with him and helped him move his furniture out. I think one even drove him to the ER as he had fallen moving his furniture. The only repercussion was me buying the four guys and their wives a steak dinner at a popular restaurant.
Trust me I wouldn’t call anyone to help me remove a squatter except a like minded brother or two.Take the law into your own hands people..The government wants us citizens dead so stop thinking this can be handled the old way
Such a solution would be most effective prior to even complaining to the government. Because once the government knows, then they will scrutinize what you do as well.
Ah, interesting. I think the laws protecting squatters are intentional anarcho-tyranny. But are you suggesting that the squatters themselves might be getting encouragement/assistance?
I think the U.S. has been/is being purposely flooded with immigrants as a new worker/enforcer class.
There are many facets of disempowerment happening simultaneously such as the corporate purchase of wide swaths of housing, as well as the lack of domestic interest in favor of overseas investment and continued wars.
All in all, I see it as the gutting of the country in order to impose more and more of an authoritarian state in which the average person is subject to chaos and martial law.
"I think the U.S. has been/is being purposely flooded with immigrants as a new worker/enforcer class."
I am all for immigration. 100 percent. But what people fail to see is that immigration has been weaponized by the power elite all throughout history. The settlement movement of the 19th century was one such engagement. The best way to prevent a population from pushing back against authoritarianism is to prevent them from communicating and galvanizing while simultaneously increasing the demand for a larger state and more authoritarianism. We are now in a perpetual state of warfare and the battlefield is everywhere.
True story. A buddy owned a condo in London. He traveled a lot on business and was only there for about three or four months a year. He went there one day and found about 20 gypsies squatting. He called the police. No help. Called a lawyer and found it would take a year, about a hundred grand in legal fees. He would win but they would demolish the place as they left. So another 100,000 to renovate it. He was despondent. He went to a pub nearby where he would have a pint when in town. The publican asked why he was so down. He explained. The pub owner laughed and said ‘no Mate. It’ll cost you about 500 quid. You’ll get it back in Saturday. He said come to the pub on Saturday with cash. He did. He walked in, the pub owner saw him, yelled out ‘he’s here’. A very crowded pub full of locals all raised a pint to him. Many also shook bats and clubs etc. The bar owner said ‘a couple of rounds then Mate’. He said ‘absolutely’. They drank for a bit then went to the condo. The gypsies opened the door to forty or fifty armed and kind of tipsy thugs. Good thugs. But Yobs, not fops. The head of them stepped forward and explained squatters rights. And three of the tough guys beat him senseless in seconds. Two or three others stepped forward to protest and ten or fifteen guys poured in and pounded them. They were told to leave and take their stuff and their garbage. Which they did. As they left they were kicked punched and clubbed down a gauntlet. A locksmith they had brought rekeyed the locks. They all went back to the pub and had a great time on my friend. My friend asked would the police investigate. They would. Sort of. They would open a file. Come to the pub, have a few pints, and when the squatters would ask they would say ‘our investigation is continuing’. The London police were happy to get it done that way. This was however 25 years ago. Maybe 30. Now, I don’t know. But in the old days that is how neighbourhoods would take care of that.
Another nice article! Now that I have found your page I have been having a bit of a field day. Your take on property rights reflects that of my own, the ideals of a classical liberal who recognizes natural law. With that being said, this "squatter" movement appears to be organized, albeit decentralized, as another insidious attack undermining property rights. It seems like the whole "you will own nothing and be happy" is a reduction of what we consider property rights to contain only personal property. However, to be honest, I do not believe property rights exist anymore, just the specter of them. Between property taxes, eminent domain, permits et cetera... there really isn't much left. We rent our property by paying an ever changing (always increasing) yearly installments under the threat of force while simultaneously being required to seek permission before doing much of anything with it. I digress, To the point, the squatters should be removed immediately by whatever means necessary. In the event it was my property, I know what I would do. However, this current system which we are subjected to will not support my actions. I do not know what the solution is, but for a time I supported obtaining clarity and protection through a Convention of States... but now I think that would be subverted like everything else.
I am very pleased that you are enjoying my articles. As you keep reading, you will begin to perceive the solution(s) I favor.
Regarding your take on the seemingly organized nature fo the wave of squatting, and the reasons for it—I agree.
Regarding your statements on the decline of property rights, I very much agree, and I do not consider it a digression at all. One day, we will go back to claiming allodial title to our lands. One day after that, we will once again be in a position to press the claim.
Regarding dealing with the squatters as they ought to be dealt with—I live in NY state, where we can know for sure the state would side with the squatters.
And I used to favor the CoS as well—Indeed, I gave the movement some free publicity when I could, on the site I used to run. But now I now not only would it be perverted, but that government itself is the perversion, so yeah—I am looking to a new horizon now. :-)
I just watched a video of a homeowner hiring a crew to evict the squatters.
The crew were men, with real strong arms, with strong voices, with confidence, with control of the situation.
You know - like, men.💪🏻
I think this is an excellent idea, and I hope it grows like wildfire…
I also suspect the invading forces of illegals are being directed to empty homes, just as they are directed to broken border holes, to coyotes, to places to pick up their phones and backpacks for their sponsored journey northward.
Re: the former—it is indeed a fantastic idea in any state that would support you for doing so. (FL, TX, etc.) In NY, the law protects the squatter and you would be arrested for taking such action.
Would you be arrested if the squatter is out? And new tenants are in with legal leases? Four burly guys. I suspect the police would leave the new tenants in, and pursue the landlord who would claim the old tenants had some sort of altercation and left. So it was rented to new people. Let the squatters sue.
“Hello, tenants! I am here to begin the work of installing a new kitchen and bathrooms! Demo begins right now. Enjoy your stay, this may take two to three years.”
I would have expected arson to skyrocket by now. I’m sure it will.
Do they? I've heard of squatters in IL who never leave, have everything delivered and trash the place. The homeowner has no recourse except months in court. It happened to a woman in the army who came back from deployment to find a squatter in her home. Awful...
When people see that all their work for a home (and feelings of shelter/safety) can be taken from them, the desire to work at all and abide by the law will disappear. Promoting theft via perverse incentives will damage this country in ways people won't expect.
So here is a weird paranoid thought. Apparently Blackrock bought 100,000 homes across the middle of America and left them empty. Which made no sense from a biz perspective. I didn’t believe it. However, suppose this trend continues. Squatting. And suppose BR does own 100,000 homes. Suppose 500,000 to a million illegals move in. Then Blackrock sues the government, which caves without a fight and pays BR exorbitant sums as rent for these homes. BR wins. Illegals win. Gov, because they hate America, wins. Citizens lose.
Right, and we pay Blackrock through taxes and inflation. Pharma just did it with the vaccine and made 200 new billionaires off of taxes and inflation, so it's definitely a "business" model.
Unfortunately, humans are still in slave-mentality mode. So when they finally figured out that they were wronged, they would go after the immigrants rather than the government. Y'know, because we cannot possibly govern ourselves because of how rotten we are, so we need masters…
Absolutely. I get you brother. And you're in my Top 10. I've had to expand to a Top 20 list of greatness because more talent has come out of the woods lately. Cuzzz I Wanna Beee - Anarchy! [The Good Kind]
Yep. But if SHTF, these illegals are not going to do our overlords bidding. There will be chaos, but it will be projected as much at the overlords as anyone else.
I'm deeply concerned that you haven't been to your parcel of Western land in 30 years. I urge you to immediately check the land for squatters. You can have a moral right to the land without having a legal right to it. Adverse possession, aka “squatter's rights', is a common law principle allowing someone to gain legal title to someone else's legal property, usually requiring exclusive, unpermitted, open and notorious occupancy for at least 10 years. The exact conditions under which a squatter can gain title to another person's property vary from one jurisdiction to another. Consider consulting an attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction. There are ways to prevent adverse possession or to evict a squatter, but you should act quickly.
It's not clear that, in principle, adverse possession differs significantly from homesteading. Suppose it can be proved that 19th century government agents stole your parcel from an Indian tribe and later granted title to a family of white homesteaders. From that time until you bought the land title passed legally from one seller to another. Do you now have moral as well as legal title to the land? If you do (as I believe you do), it's hard to find a principled objection to adverse possession.
I read the accompanying article about “anarcho-tyranny”, which I regard as a contradiction in terms. Normally, anarchy is understood to mean the absence of government or rule, while tyranny is understood to mean cruel or oppressive government or rule. The only way to make anarchy and tyranny compatible is by redefining terms. The type of political system called anarcho-tyranny is not necessarily one in which authorities are powerless to help but able to harm. If government agents fail to adequately provide services they're supposed to provide but harm people they're supposed to protect, that may be due to unwillingness instead of inability to do the former and to both willingness and ability to do the latter. In that case, I see no reason to add “anarcho” to “tyranny”. There are cases in which government agents are powerless to serve people even though they retain the power to do harm. For instance, that could occur due to some natural disaster. But every government, whether tyrannical or not, has the power to do harm but is powerless to help under some circumstances.
There is one form of anarchism I regard neither libertarian nor tyrannical, which can be called political nihilism. That's the view that there are no rights or obligations. That entails that no one has a right to rule anyone else and no one has an obligation to obey anyone else. Hence, nihilism is a form of anarchism. However, nihilism is not a form of libertarianism because in libertarian theory agents have both rights and obligations.
It can be objected that in a nihilist society everyone would be completely free, and that makes nihilism a form of libertarianism. But that objection depends on the failure to distinguish freedom from liberty. Freedom is a more general term than liberty and is divisible into liberty and license by the concept of justice. Thus, liberty is just freedom, license unjust freedom. Theoretically, in a nihilist society anything goes--such as killing, enslaving, or robbing the innocent—since there can be no such thing as a violation of a right. Hence, nihilism can be identified with chaos and disorder, thus giving anarchism a bad name. Apparently, that's the way most people conceive of anarchism. Perhaps that's what Hobbes had in mind when he spoke of the life of man in a state of nature as being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Indeed, there have been stateless societies that, except for “solitary”, fit that description. Take the Jivaro, the headhunters of the Amazon. According to a book I read about them written by an anthropologist, in Jivaro society there were twice as many women as men because the men tended to kill each other. Several other primitive tribes are considered more dangerous and violent than the Jivaro.
Re: land taken from Indians, etc. Every square inch of this country ultimately falls into that category. "Justice in rectification," as I think Nozick called it, is a complex issue.
How far back do you go? How many generations legitimately maintained a piece of land after the original theft? How do you determine which descendent is eligible to have a confiscated piece of land given to him?
If you can prove the theft, prove the claim, and the thief or his children are still alive, maybe we have something to talk about. But beyond that, we are talking about a cure that is far worse than the disease.
But I am not giving my house to some random 12th cousin of an Algonquin who may have lived in this general area 300 years ago.
Re: anarcho-tyranny. That is an existing term of art created by Sam Francis. I agree that it is problematic. Can we think of a better term—something that might actually overtake Francis' term (which is starting to gain traction)?
When police say that something is a "civil matter". What they mean is that it is not a crime against the state. The police now serve the state and all crime is against the state, or its not a crime at all. Government no longer serves to secure our natural, unalienable rights, but serve their own interests only. Crimes are against the state, restitution and fines are made to the state, jail time and prison time are punishments for crimes against the state.
If people are left to deal with "civil matters" on their own, using their own personal resources, we can expect a resurgence in vigilantism and backyard justice.
Perhaps it will be for the best.
One thing that amazes me is how obvious everything you just said is, and yet how I never figured it out on my own. I have been reading others (Hoppe, et al) saying it for the last two years, and every time, I'm like, "How did I not see that. it is so clear. The system has no interest in protecting us at all. It/they don't even see us as having been the victims!"
It dawned on me from experience. My son's unmanned car was hit in a parking lot by a guy who drove away afterwards. His car suffered significant damage. The driver was later found due to security camera footage and the driver was eventually charged with driving without insurance. When my son asked "what about my car?", he was told that since no one was in the car during the accident, his only course of action was to file a civil suit. Essentially, the state made the claim that they were the only criminal victims of the event.
Yeah, that’s a strong object lesson!
We’re targets.
Targets. Slaves. The people up near the top look at us as somewhere between a natural resource to exploit and vermin to exterminate.
But the state acts as if it is the victim.
Fines are paid to the state, not the victim. Victims pay for police protection (but the police do not actually protect them). Victims pay for police investigation and apprehension. They pay for the trial and they pay for incarceration. At no time are they made whole in any way. It isn't even considered. Instead, it is said that the criminal is paying his debt "to society."
Oh goodness, this is not so much an anger issue as a time issue. (I write and answer comments more than full time.) I take it this person was wrongly imprisoned and treated terribly?
Since you have a right to face your accuser, and since all cases are the State of WA for example, vs Joe Blow, I guess the accused needs to demand "the state" appear for cross examination.
"Bring me the Governor. And his cabinet. And the entire state legislature. And the bureaucracy. Let THEM accuse me!"
Great article Christopher!
I have come to the conclusion that the Global Predator Parasites which Control most all governments, even down to the local town level, objective is to cause as much pain and suffering as possible! Clearly they thrive from the energy released by those suffering! A few examples:
1. Modern Wars on civilians. Millions of innocent mostly defenseless women and children genocided. Gaza, Iraq, Libya etc. Even many of the operatives, who still have a consciousness, in the Israeli, US, NATO militaries suffer horribly over the damage done to humanity. Suffering from the genocided and from some of the perpetrators.
2. Migrant Crisis. Millions of humans uprooted from their homes and culture to go thousands of miles where the day will likely come where because of the crimes perpetrated by some all will be blamed, Martial Law Enacted and they will be horribly persecuted. Most of the people of the host country will suffer from the lawlessness, squatting etc. Again suffering from both sides.
3. Black vs White, Asian vs Black, Right vs Left, Jew vs Muslim, Christian vs Muslim, LGBTQ vs Straight and on and on even sporting events. Imagine how much energy is lost even during a sporting event.
The Predator/Parasites are Ghouls who live off the Emotional Energy of both sides of any war, issue, sporting event etc.
Soon the Predator/Parasite/Ghouls and their Masters will have no more Energy to suck!
If true, then people trying to feel less anger would starve them of fuel.
Right Chris but how do we not get angry at what they are doing to us?
Consider Covid and the Bioweapon Jab: Clearly it was a US Department of Defense Project. Caused the Pandemic and all its ridiculous rules (6 foot, masks, dancing nurses, no early treatment, no Ivermectin) and all the Genocide and health issues that caused as well as psychological and financial harm.
Its not just about the money because the Predator/Parasites Control and print money and charge interest on it (zeros on a screen nowadays) Federal Reserve/Rothschilds, Warburgs etc. Its about stealing Emotional Energy from people, animals etc which has a deleterious effect on our Spirits.
Angry at them, yes. Angry at each other…maybe we can reduce that, where possible.
The TQ part of the LGBTQ was completely invented for such division.
Florida is about to end this insanity today, a bill to remove squatters "rights" is on the Florida governors desk and there is a 100% chance he will sign it into law. I love Florida so much.
Lucky!
I had a rental building in Vancouver. Nice building good tenants. I had 47 suites and had 29 children in the building. A suite was rented to a guy whom the tenants told me was a drug dealer and had people, bad people, coming and going and making noise all through the night. I went to rent review commission to see how I could evict him. They said if be pays his rent I can’t evict him unless the police got involved. I call the VPD. They are useless. I went back to the Dads who had told me of the problem. I said I would work on it, and in the meantime I needed proof to get to the police. I was back a week later and saw 3 or 4 dads. They said ‘305 is gone’. I said ‘really? How did that happen?’ They had had a conversation with the guy. 3 am, lots of noise, waking up children and guys who to work the next day. They ‘conversed’ with him and helped him move his furniture out. I think one even drove him to the ER as he had fallen moving his furniture. The only repercussion was me buying the four guys and their wives a steak dinner at a popular restaurant.
This is the way.
Trust me I wouldn’t call anyone to help me remove a squatter except a like minded brother or two.Take the law into your own hands people..The government wants us citizens dead so stop thinking this can be handled the old way
Such a solution would be most effective prior to even complaining to the government. Because once the government knows, then they will scrutinize what you do as well.
"You will own nothing and be happy."???
Ah, interesting. I think the laws protecting squatters are intentional anarcho-tyranny. But are you suggesting that the squatters themselves might be getting encouragement/assistance?
I think the U.S. has been/is being purposely flooded with immigrants as a new worker/enforcer class.
There are many facets of disempowerment happening simultaneously such as the corporate purchase of wide swaths of housing, as well as the lack of domestic interest in favor of overseas investment and continued wars.
All in all, I see it as the gutting of the country in order to impose more and more of an authoritarian state in which the average person is subject to chaos and martial law.
I wonder, though… Will their army of illegal enforcers actually do their bidding if SHTF?
Well, how did they get 4 or 5 people to commit murder in Moscow?
It's an easy recipe. Take someone who has nothing, and offer them something.
Here it's citizenship, a home and money.
They've already made it easy to hate Americans. So why not?
Yep, they have control of them now. But if things totally melt down, I do not think they can maintain that control any longer.
If things totally melt down, then it's military rule. And the same ideas apply. Those who offer fealty and service will be rewarded.
I agree with this:
"I think the U.S. has been/is being purposely flooded with immigrants as a new worker/enforcer class."
I am all for immigration. 100 percent. But what people fail to see is that immigration has been weaponized by the power elite all throughout history. The settlement movement of the 19th century was one such engagement. The best way to prevent a population from pushing back against authoritarianism is to prevent them from communicating and galvanizing while simultaneously increasing the demand for a larger state and more authoritarianism. We are now in a perpetual state of warfare and the battlefield is everywhere.
They are financed and supplied narcotics
True story. A buddy owned a condo in London. He traveled a lot on business and was only there for about three or four months a year. He went there one day and found about 20 gypsies squatting. He called the police. No help. Called a lawyer and found it would take a year, about a hundred grand in legal fees. He would win but they would demolish the place as they left. So another 100,000 to renovate it. He was despondent. He went to a pub nearby where he would have a pint when in town. The publican asked why he was so down. He explained. The pub owner laughed and said ‘no Mate. It’ll cost you about 500 quid. You’ll get it back in Saturday. He said come to the pub on Saturday with cash. He did. He walked in, the pub owner saw him, yelled out ‘he’s here’. A very crowded pub full of locals all raised a pint to him. Many also shook bats and clubs etc. The bar owner said ‘a couple of rounds then Mate’. He said ‘absolutely’. They drank for a bit then went to the condo. The gypsies opened the door to forty or fifty armed and kind of tipsy thugs. Good thugs. But Yobs, not fops. The head of them stepped forward and explained squatters rights. And three of the tough guys beat him senseless in seconds. Two or three others stepped forward to protest and ten or fifteen guys poured in and pounded them. They were told to leave and take their stuff and their garbage. Which they did. As they left they were kicked punched and clubbed down a gauntlet. A locksmith they had brought rekeyed the locks. They all went back to the pub and had a great time on my friend. My friend asked would the police investigate. They would. Sort of. They would open a file. Come to the pub, have a few pints, and when the squatters would ask they would say ‘our investigation is continuing’. The London police were happy to get it done that way. This was however 25 years ago. Maybe 30. Now, I don’t know. But in the old days that is how neighbourhoods would take care of that.
I worry that it may no longer be that way. But I would still try it, and dare the police to do something about it!
Another nice article! Now that I have found your page I have been having a bit of a field day. Your take on property rights reflects that of my own, the ideals of a classical liberal who recognizes natural law. With that being said, this "squatter" movement appears to be organized, albeit decentralized, as another insidious attack undermining property rights. It seems like the whole "you will own nothing and be happy" is a reduction of what we consider property rights to contain only personal property. However, to be honest, I do not believe property rights exist anymore, just the specter of them. Between property taxes, eminent domain, permits et cetera... there really isn't much left. We rent our property by paying an ever changing (always increasing) yearly installments under the threat of force while simultaneously being required to seek permission before doing much of anything with it. I digress, To the point, the squatters should be removed immediately by whatever means necessary. In the event it was my property, I know what I would do. However, this current system which we are subjected to will not support my actions. I do not know what the solution is, but for a time I supported obtaining clarity and protection through a Convention of States... but now I think that would be subverted like everything else.
I am very pleased that you are enjoying my articles. As you keep reading, you will begin to perceive the solution(s) I favor.
Regarding your take on the seemingly organized nature fo the wave of squatting, and the reasons for it—I agree.
Regarding your statements on the decline of property rights, I very much agree, and I do not consider it a digression at all. One day, we will go back to claiming allodial title to our lands. One day after that, we will once again be in a position to press the claim.
Regarding dealing with the squatters as they ought to be dealt with—I live in NY state, where we can know for sure the state would side with the squatters.
And I used to favor the CoS as well—Indeed, I gave the movement some free publicity when I could, on the site I used to run. But now I now not only would it be perverted, but that government itself is the perversion, so yeah—I am looking to a new horizon now. :-)
Huzzah! I look forward to reading more of your work. It is good to meet someone who is a kindred spirit. Keep up the good work!
Rock on!
I just watched a video of a homeowner hiring a crew to evict the squatters.
The crew were men, with real strong arms, with strong voices, with confidence, with control of the situation.
You know - like, men.💪🏻
I think this is an excellent idea, and I hope it grows like wildfire…
I also suspect the invading forces of illegals are being directed to empty homes, just as they are directed to broken border holes, to coyotes, to places to pick up their phones and backpacks for their sponsored journey northward.
Re: the latter, 💯.
Re: the former—it is indeed a fantastic idea in any state that would support you for doing so. (FL, TX, etc.) In NY, the law protects the squatter and you would be arrested for taking such action.
Would you be arrested if the squatter is out? And new tenants are in with legal leases? Four burly guys. I suspect the police would leave the new tenants in, and pursue the landlord who would claim the old tenants had some sort of altercation and left. So it was rented to new people. Let the squatters sue.
Sounds fine to me!!
Only if the squatters had time
to react….probably couldn’t call the cops if they’re outside of the property…
True! Let's roll!
😎👍🏻
“Hello, tenants! I am here to begin the work of installing a new kitchen and bathrooms! Demo begins right now. Enjoy your stay, this may take two to three years.”
I would have expected arson to skyrocket by now. I’m sure it will.
Hah! Yep.
Another thought: They have to go out sometime. While they are gone a new squatter moves in: Me. And I defend myself against a home invasion.
Great plan…in a state that allows you to defend yourself and your property! NY is not really one of those states.
Fortunately, Ohio is a little more free.
Lucky you!
Do they? I've heard of squatters in IL who never leave, have everything delivered and trash the place. The homeowner has no recourse except months in court. It happened to a woman in the army who came back from deployment to find a squatter in her home. Awful...
When people see that all their work for a home (and feelings of shelter/safety) can be taken from them, the desire to work at all and abide by the law will disappear. Promoting theft via perverse incentives will damage this country in ways people won't expect.
And I presume you are contending that that is part of the plan?
I don't know if it's part of someone's plan or just unintended consequences.
A-fucking-MEN. How did any of these absurd laws get proposed and passed in the first place?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/squatters-rights-by-state
You can check your State laws. This is madness.
Insane!
Everybody's a socialist until someone steals their wallet.
Not everybody 🤣💪
Not I.
So here is a weird paranoid thought. Apparently Blackrock bought 100,000 homes across the middle of America and left them empty. Which made no sense from a biz perspective. I didn’t believe it. However, suppose this trend continues. Squatting. And suppose BR does own 100,000 homes. Suppose 500,000 to a million illegals move in. Then Blackrock sues the government, which caves without a fight and pays BR exorbitant sums as rent for these homes. BR wins. Illegals win. Gov, because they hate America, wins. Citizens lose.
Right, and we pay Blackrock through taxes and inflation. Pharma just did it with the vaccine and made 200 new billionaires off of taxes and inflation, so it's definitely a "business" model.
Unfortunately, humans are still in slave-mentality mode. So when they finally figured out that they were wronged, they would go after the immigrants rather than the government. Y'know, because we cannot possibly govern ourselves because of how rotten we are, so we need masters…
Absolutely. I get you brother. And you're in my Top 10. I've had to expand to a Top 20 list of greatness because more talent has come out of the woods lately. Cuzzz I Wanna Beee - Anarchy! [The Good Kind]
Here's to the good kind!
And thanks!
this will get much worse . . . the illegals are being taught how easy it is to squat
Yep. But if SHTF, these illegals are not going to do our overlords bidding. There will be chaos, but it will be projected as much at the overlords as anyone else.
Christopher,
I'm deeply concerned that you haven't been to your parcel of Western land in 30 years. I urge you to immediately check the land for squatters. You can have a moral right to the land without having a legal right to it. Adverse possession, aka “squatter's rights', is a common law principle allowing someone to gain legal title to someone else's legal property, usually requiring exclusive, unpermitted, open and notorious occupancy for at least 10 years. The exact conditions under which a squatter can gain title to another person's property vary from one jurisdiction to another. Consider consulting an attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction. There are ways to prevent adverse possession or to evict a squatter, but you should act quickly.
It's not clear that, in principle, adverse possession differs significantly from homesteading. Suppose it can be proved that 19th century government agents stole your parcel from an Indian tribe and later granted title to a family of white homesteaders. From that time until you bought the land title passed legally from one seller to another. Do you now have moral as well as legal title to the land? If you do (as I believe you do), it's hard to find a principled objection to adverse possession.
I read the accompanying article about “anarcho-tyranny”, which I regard as a contradiction in terms. Normally, anarchy is understood to mean the absence of government or rule, while tyranny is understood to mean cruel or oppressive government or rule. The only way to make anarchy and tyranny compatible is by redefining terms. The type of political system called anarcho-tyranny is not necessarily one in which authorities are powerless to help but able to harm. If government agents fail to adequately provide services they're supposed to provide but harm people they're supposed to protect, that may be due to unwillingness instead of inability to do the former and to both willingness and ability to do the latter. In that case, I see no reason to add “anarcho” to “tyranny”. There are cases in which government agents are powerless to serve people even though they retain the power to do harm. For instance, that could occur due to some natural disaster. But every government, whether tyrannical or not, has the power to do harm but is powerless to help under some circumstances.
There is one form of anarchism I regard neither libertarian nor tyrannical, which can be called political nihilism. That's the view that there are no rights or obligations. That entails that no one has a right to rule anyone else and no one has an obligation to obey anyone else. Hence, nihilism is a form of anarchism. However, nihilism is not a form of libertarianism because in libertarian theory agents have both rights and obligations.
It can be objected that in a nihilist society everyone would be completely free, and that makes nihilism a form of libertarianism. But that objection depends on the failure to distinguish freedom from liberty. Freedom is a more general term than liberty and is divisible into liberty and license by the concept of justice. Thus, liberty is just freedom, license unjust freedom. Theoretically, in a nihilist society anything goes--such as killing, enslaving, or robbing the innocent—since there can be no such thing as a violation of a right. Hence, nihilism can be identified with chaos and disorder, thus giving anarchism a bad name. Apparently, that's the way most people conceive of anarchism. Perhaps that's what Hobbes had in mind when he spoke of the life of man in a state of nature as being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Indeed, there have been stateless societies that, except for “solitary”, fit that description. Take the Jivaro, the headhunters of the Amazon. According to a book I read about them written by an anthropologist, in Jivaro society there were twice as many women as men because the men tended to kill each other. Several other primitive tribes are considered more dangerous and violent than the Jivaro.
Thanks for the concern and advice on squatters on my land. I actually have a neighbor with whom I communicate. As of last year, no squatters!
Re: land taken from Indians, etc. Every square inch of this country ultimately falls into that category. "Justice in rectification," as I think Nozick called it, is a complex issue.
How far back do you go? How many generations legitimately maintained a piece of land after the original theft? How do you determine which descendent is eligible to have a confiscated piece of land given to him?
If you can prove the theft, prove the claim, and the thief or his children are still alive, maybe we have something to talk about. But beyond that, we are talking about a cure that is far worse than the disease.
But I am not giving my house to some random 12th cousin of an Algonquin who may have lived in this general area 300 years ago.
Re: political nihilism…
How might you adjust the flow chart here to reflect?
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/what-kind-world-you-want
Re: anarcho-tyranny. That is an existing term of art created by Sam Francis. I agree that it is problematic. Can we think of a better term—something that might actually overtake Francis' term (which is starting to gain traction)?