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.
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!
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
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 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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
"You will own nothing and be happy."???
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 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.
“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.
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.
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.
Everybody's a socialist until someone steals their wallet.
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.
this will get much worse . . . the illegals are being taught how easy it is to squat
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.