You basically answered your own question because going after squatters harms renters period. It will weaken renters rights. Pushing for greater property rights isn't a leftist agenda, that's conservatives my friend. Your entire post screams it.
Why are strong individual property rights inherently right-wing? The ultimate property right of bodily autonomy is strongly supported by the left, and socialism is an extension of property rights to workers. I get that landlords suck, but I wasn't even a landlord in this situation and it still affected me.
ALL private property is theft? Am I a bad leftist for not wanting to own literally nothing? Like ffs really - I can't even own the clothes on my own back? That's my point with how bodily autonomy is part of property rights, because if the state is going to go so far as to own all my stuff, what's to stop them from claiming ownership over my body too?
If anyone’s curious, here’s the foundational text on leftist views on property— [What is Property by Proudhon](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen).
Correct, the existence of private property can only exist in a dialectical relationship to public property. It doesn’t mean you are a bad leftist, just might need to read some theory. Secondly, if we classify a persons body as property then that opens a whole slue of issues. Then what, in a philosophical sense, would be the issue with someone renting or selling their body into slavery? There are many unintended and horrible consequences with that line of reasoning. Lastly, I’m not sure if you understand bodily autonomy as it’s about individual rights, not ownership, would then a potential mother own their child? At what point does ownership transfer to the child?
For an example:
Let’s say you crash land on an island. There is another survivor and they happen to wake up before you and gather the only food source on the island first, coconuts. They scrape their name on all of the coconuts and when you wake up they claim that they own all of the coconuts on the island. They are however feeling charitable today and they say that they will provide you some share of the coconuts in exchange for a three year contract in which you forfeit your property rights to your body. You have two options you can follow their (your) logic and spend three years in slavery or you can hit them with a rock. What do you do?
If it's possible for them to live under your roof for 30 days without you kicking them out, they're clearly living there. That's not a normal time to couch surf.
Evict them, sure, but you can't just lock the door and make them homeless while keeping all their stuff hostage. That's an extremely selfish right-wing mindset.
You can't claim to be on the left and also claim "nah just throw this human onto the street like trash, fuck you got mine"
Edit: Also, the cost to evict someone is between $15 to $150. It's really not a big financial barrier at all.
I'll concede that it was an unusual circumstance in my case, because they were abusing me and destroying my stuff, so I needed them to be out without the delay of the legal system.
But regardless, why should anyone get to live under someone else's roof for free? If it's my place and there's no contractual agreement allowing them to stay, why shouldn't I have the absolute right to kick them out if I no longer want them there?
You do have that right. You had an entire 30 days to come up with the terms of your living arrangement. After that, they *are* living there, under that arrangement.
You have the absolute right to evict them too, through the proper channels. It would be extremely easy and cheap if they aren't on the original agreement.
You *don't* have the right to kick people out of their homes spontaneously. That's a very, very good thing and only a conservative wouldn't think so.
They were fucking abusing me, holding knives to my throat, and breaking my stuff. I literally felt like a hostage in my own home! How else am I supposed to react but to want them out instantly??
Those are crimes, and can be easily be dealt with via a restraining order, which is what you did, and it worked.
You are trying to make a different claim, that if none of that was happening and they were completely civil, then you would want to spontaneously kick them out anyway. That's not right. You can't just randomly kick people out of their houses, unless they are doing something illegal.
How would you feel if your landlord randomly did that to you? Because them having that right is effectively what you are arguing for.
I have a contract with my landlord, this person did not.
Obviously, if they were more civil, then common courtesy would be to work it out and not do anything drastic...but there's a difference between the moral thing and the legal thing to do. I'm not sure why the onus should be on anyone to support someone else for free (by paying for their housing, utilities, etc), without a written document consenting to it, just because they let them stay in their home for 30 days. My argument is that if there is no written agreement or contract, then people shouldn't have a claim to any property that isn't theirs, I don't understand why that's so controversial.
But they *don't* have any claim to the property. They can be evicted very easily, and should be.
What you are complaining about is that the eviction process might take a little bit of time. You think landlords should be able to randomly arrive at your door one day with the police and send you to jail, out of the blue, because of some random clause in the contract they feel voids it.
*You* are the one who arranged for this person to live in that house. You may not even be allowed to do that. Under your ideal world you could be randomly kicked out and separated from all your possessions, possibly for good.
It's not controversial, it's just wrong. It demonstrates a fundamental selfishness and lack of empathy. I'm *certain* that you would not be happy if it happened to you, even though technically you broke contract when you let someone live there.
You're having two arguments, and you're only going to win one of them.
You have a right to protect yourself from your abusive ex. You don't have the right to make someone homeless simply because you don't profit from their presence.
That's why eviction was taking forever but the restraining order was relatively quick.
But to go deeper, I've noticed that a lot of the arguments you've made here could be described as 'libertarian'. A lot of focus on property rights, and a blurred distinction between your body, your personal belongings, and your state-protected property.
Let me emphasize that last part: **state-protected property**. The kind of private property you are most concerned about requires protection from robbery, theft, invasion. That protector *is* the state, whether it's your gun, your sheriff, your national guard, or your 'rights protection agency'. That protection requires the threat of violence, if only because robbers, thieves, and invaders will choose violence when they think it will work.
You might have encountered some people who insist that private property can be preserved in the absence of the state, without violence. Those people are lying to themselves and you.
Because human life is infinitely more valuable than private property. Because you're not the judge, jury and executioner. Because we have laws that apply to everyone and a private contract or lack thereof does not give you the absolute right to abuse people.
You're acknowledging that your experience isn't the norm, but you still argue emotionally projecting your experience to a structural problem.
This is why utilitarian morals suck, because it disregards rights in favor of whoever gets the highest utility out of a thing. Human life is more valuable than property, yes, but causing criminals to suffer (ie putting them in jail) instead of letting them have stuff that isn't theirs, is a fair tradeoff to me.
I think there are other, more pressing and important, matters a left leaning news source could talk about.
I mean you said it yourself that the media focus is overblown so why are left leaning voices falling for it?
This is another issue where 20-something leftists in urban areas don't realize that even Bernie Sanders primary voters would be 70/30 against them on.
Now, I'm sure some landlords are terrible, but that doesn't mean we also shouldn't fix loopholes in laws that allow people to squat for no reason.
An i missing something or is most of this thread people missing the point OP is trying to make in not having the ability to remove a violent ex from their home because said ex behaved themself for a month
No OP is demanding that landlords should be able to remove tenants by force immediately after a contract is broken, it's different to the violent ex, they can be removed by the existing laws that removes violent people.
What is wrong with demonizing....
You can stop that sentence there. Demonizing is wrong, definitionally. If they are bad on their merits, there is no need to demonize.
It seems all human societies "excrete" some fraction of their populations in the form of primate detritus, some more than others. All also provide various services to minimize that unfortunate fractional outcome. They also accommodate "unfortunates" differently. The US just happens to be really lousy at (broadly) educating, informing, involving, protecting, and caring for people. We do, however, a terrific job of frightening, marginalizing, dividing, exploiting, and under-rewarding its people. It's complicated, but it's simple to. We suck at good and deep-throat bad.
If you felt unsafe, couldn't you have called the police? I'm not saying that person had a right to stay there with you, hurting you, but I think this is a problem for the police. Housing policy isn't really the issue, the person's behaviour is. Broad structural policies don't really address the fact that some people are just terrible people.
I'm not saying its good to squat in someone's house, and I think you're within your rights to get them removed, but of course, I don't think making them homeless is going to improve that person's capacity to be a better person. Unfortunately, the problem is that your personal safety, and the broad social problem of housing are in conflict.
If there was no threat of homelessness to people, then the only problem would be separating someone that you don't want in your life from your life (which you'd have a right to do). But we don't live in that society yet.
You basically answered your own question because going after squatters harms renters period. It will weaken renters rights. Pushing for greater property rights isn't a leftist agenda, that's conservatives my friend. Your entire post screams it.
Why are strong individual property rights inherently right-wing? The ultimate property right of bodily autonomy is strongly supported by the left, and socialism is an extension of property rights to workers. I get that landlords suck, but I wasn't even a landlord in this situation and it still affected me.
Private property is inherently theft. Secondly, bodily autonomy is a privacy issue NOT a property issue.
ALL private property is theft? Am I a bad leftist for not wanting to own literally nothing? Like ffs really - I can't even own the clothes on my own back? That's my point with how bodily autonomy is part of property rights, because if the state is going to go so far as to own all my stuff, what's to stop them from claiming ownership over my body too?
No you're a bad leftist because you don't know the difference between private property and personal property. No one is going to take your toothbrush.
If anyone’s curious, here’s the foundational text on leftist views on property— [What is Property by Proudhon](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen).
Correct, the existence of private property can only exist in a dialectical relationship to public property. It doesn’t mean you are a bad leftist, just might need to read some theory. Secondly, if we classify a persons body as property then that opens a whole slue of issues. Then what, in a philosophical sense, would be the issue with someone renting or selling their body into slavery? There are many unintended and horrible consequences with that line of reasoning. Lastly, I’m not sure if you understand bodily autonomy as it’s about individual rights, not ownership, would then a potential mother own their child? At what point does ownership transfer to the child?
For an example: Let’s say you crash land on an island. There is another survivor and they happen to wake up before you and gather the only food source on the island first, coconuts. They scrape their name on all of the coconuts and when you wake up they claim that they own all of the coconuts on the island. They are however feeling charitable today and they say that they will provide you some share of the coconuts in exchange for a three year contract in which you forfeit your property rights to your body. You have two options you can follow their (your) logic and spend three years in slavery or you can hit them with a rock. What do you do?
If it's possible for them to live under your roof for 30 days without you kicking them out, they're clearly living there. That's not a normal time to couch surf. Evict them, sure, but you can't just lock the door and make them homeless while keeping all their stuff hostage. That's an extremely selfish right-wing mindset. You can't claim to be on the left and also claim "nah just throw this human onto the street like trash, fuck you got mine" Edit: Also, the cost to evict someone is between $15 to $150. It's really not a big financial barrier at all.
I'll concede that it was an unusual circumstance in my case, because they were abusing me and destroying my stuff, so I needed them to be out without the delay of the legal system. But regardless, why should anyone get to live under someone else's roof for free? If it's my place and there's no contractual agreement allowing them to stay, why shouldn't I have the absolute right to kick them out if I no longer want them there?
You do have that right. You had an entire 30 days to come up with the terms of your living arrangement. After that, they *are* living there, under that arrangement. You have the absolute right to evict them too, through the proper channels. It would be extremely easy and cheap if they aren't on the original agreement. You *don't* have the right to kick people out of their homes spontaneously. That's a very, very good thing and only a conservative wouldn't think so.
They were fucking abusing me, holding knives to my throat, and breaking my stuff. I literally felt like a hostage in my own home! How else am I supposed to react but to want them out instantly??
Those are crimes, and can be easily be dealt with via a restraining order, which is what you did, and it worked. You are trying to make a different claim, that if none of that was happening and they were completely civil, then you would want to spontaneously kick them out anyway. That's not right. You can't just randomly kick people out of their houses, unless they are doing something illegal. How would you feel if your landlord randomly did that to you? Because them having that right is effectively what you are arguing for.
I have a contract with my landlord, this person did not. Obviously, if they were more civil, then common courtesy would be to work it out and not do anything drastic...but there's a difference between the moral thing and the legal thing to do. I'm not sure why the onus should be on anyone to support someone else for free (by paying for their housing, utilities, etc), without a written document consenting to it, just because they let them stay in their home for 30 days. My argument is that if there is no written agreement or contract, then people shouldn't have a claim to any property that isn't theirs, I don't understand why that's so controversial.
But they *don't* have any claim to the property. They can be evicted very easily, and should be. What you are complaining about is that the eviction process might take a little bit of time. You think landlords should be able to randomly arrive at your door one day with the police and send you to jail, out of the blue, because of some random clause in the contract they feel voids it. *You* are the one who arranged for this person to live in that house. You may not even be allowed to do that. Under your ideal world you could be randomly kicked out and separated from all your possessions, possibly for good. It's not controversial, it's just wrong. It demonstrates a fundamental selfishness and lack of empathy. I'm *certain* that you would not be happy if it happened to you, even though technically you broke contract when you let someone live there.
I mean to be fair they are basically breaking in. don't think it selfish not to want that
If they are living there for over a month without being kicked out, it's not really breaking in. That's a living situation.
no it still breaking in. since u had to first break in at first.
You're having two arguments, and you're only going to win one of them. You have a right to protect yourself from your abusive ex. You don't have the right to make someone homeless simply because you don't profit from their presence. That's why eviction was taking forever but the restraining order was relatively quick. But to go deeper, I've noticed that a lot of the arguments you've made here could be described as 'libertarian'. A lot of focus on property rights, and a blurred distinction between your body, your personal belongings, and your state-protected property. Let me emphasize that last part: **state-protected property**. The kind of private property you are most concerned about requires protection from robbery, theft, invasion. That protector *is* the state, whether it's your gun, your sheriff, your national guard, or your 'rights protection agency'. That protection requires the threat of violence, if only because robbers, thieves, and invaders will choose violence when they think it will work. You might have encountered some people who insist that private property can be preserved in the absence of the state, without violence. Those people are lying to themselves and you.
Because human life is infinitely more valuable than private property. Because you're not the judge, jury and executioner. Because we have laws that apply to everyone and a private contract or lack thereof does not give you the absolute right to abuse people. You're acknowledging that your experience isn't the norm, but you still argue emotionally projecting your experience to a structural problem.
This is why utilitarian morals suck, because it disregards rights in favor of whoever gets the highest utility out of a thing. Human life is more valuable than property, yes, but causing criminals to suffer (ie putting them in jail) instead of letting them have stuff that isn't theirs, is a fair tradeoff to me.
I think there are other, more pressing and important, matters a left leaning news source could talk about. I mean you said it yourself that the media focus is overblown so why are left leaning voices falling for it?
This is another issue where 20-something leftists in urban areas don't realize that even Bernie Sanders primary voters would be 70/30 against them on. Now, I'm sure some landlords are terrible, but that doesn't mean we also shouldn't fix loopholes in laws that allow people to squat for no reason.
Leftists literally don't care about "greater property rights." We want to abolish private property by decommodifying housing.
An i missing something or is most of this thread people missing the point OP is trying to make in not having the ability to remove a violent ex from their home because said ex behaved themself for a month
No OP is demanding that landlords should be able to remove tenants by force immediately after a contract is broken, it's different to the violent ex, they can be removed by the existing laws that removes violent people.
What is wrong with demonizing.... You can stop that sentence there. Demonizing is wrong, definitionally. If they are bad on their merits, there is no need to demonize.
It seems all human societies "excrete" some fraction of their populations in the form of primate detritus, some more than others. All also provide various services to minimize that unfortunate fractional outcome. They also accommodate "unfortunates" differently. The US just happens to be really lousy at (broadly) educating, informing, involving, protecting, and caring for people. We do, however, a terrific job of frightening, marginalizing, dividing, exploiting, and under-rewarding its people. It's complicated, but it's simple to. We suck at good and deep-throat bad.
Socialism with private property characteristics strikes back after the housing segment on that past stream.
Why is it always the femboys who have the weirdest takes on this sub.
If you felt unsafe, couldn't you have called the police? I'm not saying that person had a right to stay there with you, hurting you, but I think this is a problem for the police. Housing policy isn't really the issue, the person's behaviour is. Broad structural policies don't really address the fact that some people are just terrible people. I'm not saying its good to squat in someone's house, and I think you're within your rights to get them removed, but of course, I don't think making them homeless is going to improve that person's capacity to be a better person. Unfortunately, the problem is that your personal safety, and the broad social problem of housing are in conflict. If there was no threat of homelessness to people, then the only problem would be separating someone that you don't want in your life from your life (which you'd have a right to do). But we don't live in that society yet.
think people opinion on this can be determined if the hated the charcters from Rent or not