Miami activist thinks they are above reality / the law

[NecronLord]

It's people in need of shelter squatting in what shelter is available.

Let's not get carried away.

Here here. Regardless of how society ought to work, these people are disadvantaged, and they're taking a necessary resource from those that are not using it. Is it legal? Hell no? Should it be, not really, that'd be a shitty way to do things.

Can I bring myself to morally dismiss them as 'thinks they are above reality' when for them the reality is cold, hard nights, or occupying an empty building. No. Their actions inflict very little direct harm on those they take from (the banks) and massively benefit the disadvantaged (them).

It's not a good way to run society, but I would stop way short of saying they're 'immoral theives' because they're not willing to wait for some pie in the sky web-board plans to be taken up as government policy.

[KrauserKrauser]

Ok, I know you've gone from rabidly Captialist to rabidly Communist/Socialist so there isn't anyway I am going to change your mind, you tend to make massive swings ideologically on your own time frame, but my debating skills are lackluster at best and this is fun enough.

An unoccupied house, yes.

Which the banks can sell in a foreclosure auction or someone can otherwise make some use of the house without having to resort to theft. Simply because a resource is not being used currently and is lying idle does not give other people the right to claim it as their own, ignoring pre-existing lawful claims to the property.

You are going to counter with I don't believe in property rights now because they are all horribly capitalist but be honest you have seen in Soviet Russia that extreme collectivization and ignoring property rights is not the right approach. What's next? If I have a car in the garage that I am using to sell in 20 years can someone come in and steal it because it will be idle for 20 years?

You're strawmanning the fact that the houses in question are unoccupied. The original question, which you are ignoring, Sir, was if you could break into an unoccupied house and live in it. And I said "yes, if you were prepared to share it with others". Because of course nobody has the right to a full sized McMansion unless they have a very large family, they're extremely inefficient uses of social resources, so they should be shared between families.

Yeah, I was basically echoing an earlier comment that your decision to let this guy live with you is not the same as the theft that is going on in this case. The people obviously could not afford these houses and both sides were at fault but McMansion hot button social excess word aside these people are stealing and anyone living there is breaking the law.

Why does nobody have the right to own a McMansion, what if they like having extra space? Does everyone have to live in a lot size and house size that you arbitrarily deem approrpiate? Every human being that lives on the Earth can be put in Projects within Texas, are you arguing against overconsumption or property rights?

Your counter will be that you think everyone should be living within their means and in harmony with fluffy kittens and puppies. I agree, in a perfect world alot of stuff would be great. Idealism doesn't interact well with reality.

The car, good Sir, is being used. Same thing with Broomstick's comments. The property is being used--there is a house on part of it, the rest of it is being maintained as a nature preserve, so, no, it's not terra nullius. I am proposing after all that the law be changed, so that property which sits unused (as in a whole plot, and preservation as a nature preserve could be registered with the government, under strict terms, to prevent this from happening) could be seized and redistributed. Now, note that such nature preserve factors are already in use. You can 'landbank' your property, getting paid to agree to never develop it, and legally it can no longer be developed. So if you want a nature preserve on your property, landbank it, it's eternally a nature preserve, and now it cannot be seized because it remains continuously in use as a nature preserve. Very simple.

But what about a car collection? What if the banks take notice of this and maintain them or send security with a higher sense of ownership? The people will still be homeless and the banks can easily afford it with the US Government pocketbook currently held permanently open for them, so is the objection that the banks are not performing a good faith effort with respect to exhibitting their ownership or that every possible unused house should be commandeered for people unwilling to observe property rights?

No, because you're causing overall harm to the economy and a stress on the government, i.e., you're consuming social resources without cause. This is not the case with unproductive possessions.

But the cost of the squatters removing the asset from the banks ledger will be replaced with taxpayers dollars from the bailout. What harm is me stealing $500 when the squatters are taking $100,000 in value from a much greater number of people? It's not like this is a victimless crime, there is a definite victim, just in this case this victim is currently very much disliked.

If the car has sat there in operating condition unused for years, depreciating, yes. If it is in regular use, no. That is the ethical consideration. Notice that the same true of older laws, for instance salvage laws where if you find a ship abandoned on the high seas, you get to claim a substantial portion of its value for yourself, with the owners are obligated to provide to you, or else you can keep the vessel, and also with steadholding laws which allow you squatter's rights.

So anything in my closet that I haven't used for whatever arbitrary time period you deem appropriate should be fair game for others? Should they be able to break in and steal anything they want with the view that it is not in use and can be theirs for the low low price of free? I mean these people are going onto the banks property and stealing from them, the bank might not be using them or even be able to use them for 20 years. I might not be able or want to drink a wheel of cheese that I have in a hypothetical wine cellar for 30 years and should it be ok for someone to steal it because it is not actively producing any value? Oh, it has expected potential value in the future? And these houses don't? I hear radio advertisements for foreclosure auctions all the time, these aren't nothing the banks own, they are actually worth something.

These are nothing more than an extension of practices already written into law for centuries into other areas, and giving them more regular use, and more rights and considerations to the squatters/salvagers, just like the more than 200 operating and successful Reclaimed Companies in Argentina are now productive parts of their economy, whereas under the old owners the workers seized them from, they were idle, and the workers were unemployed. That is a fact which cannot be disputed--the practice of seizing unused businesses by the workers and reopening them has contributed to the economic health and recovery of Argentina.

Super duper for Argentina who for the most part has a ton of issues along with problems with property rights. Saying that the US is in such dire straights that it must now start nationalizing everything in sight is going a bit far.

You should have no right to property if you do not regularly use it, and the definitions of regular use should be set by the government... To force the government to accommodate such methods, civil disobedience should be used.

Furthermore, since I favour the nationalization of major lending banks anyway, I don't care about harm to the banks from this, since if it's regularized this would be part of the government process for dealing with property.

How regular is ok? If I buy a boat or a car or a vacation house and only use it once a year or every 5 years or 10 or 20? When is often enough to justify someone coming in and stealing it? Laws have been passed that determine these limits, these people are breaking these laws. We're not exactly to the soup line and anarchy phase where rule of law no longer applies.

You aren't just harming the banks, you are harming the belief in individual property which is a BAD THING, unless you want to argue for collectivization and if so, well you are jumping further and further into the deep end, and will have less and less rational responses.

[KrauserKrauser]

This is disturbing because it essentially states that adult citizens with all of the rights and privileges to enter into contracts, are regarded as blameless and responsibility-free, if they should happen to exercise their right and privilege to enter into an agreement which turns out to have been ill-considered, on their end (and anyone who enters into a financial agreement they don't understand is lazy, foolish, or some combination of the two, neither of which is the banks' doing). It seems to undermine the concept that adults are responsible for the choices they make, and the consequences of those choices.

Well obviously when a single person is making a decision he shouldn't be held responsible but when a bunch of individuals come together in a profit making venture every stupid decision they make earns them a ticket straight to HELL!

I can't tell if this is sarcasm, or not.

Sorry.

Sarcasm, next with added

[Kanastrous]

This doesn't seem to be 'theft,' though. Trespassing, sure, but not theft. These people - for the most part - aren't taking the properties anywhere.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ok, I know you've gone from rabidly Captialist to rabidly Communist/Socialist so there isn't anyway I am going to change your mind, you tend to make massive swings ideologically on your own time frame, but my debating skills are lackluster at best and this is fun enough.

Actually it's a mating strategy. Seriously.

Uhm, anyway, I'm not advocating communism as such, but a sort of technocratic syndicalism and planned economy based around the dirigisme.

Which the banks can sell in a foreclosure auction or someone can otherwise make some use of the house without having to resort to theft. Simply because a resource is not being used currently and is lying idle does not give other people the right to claim it as their own, ignoring pre-existing lawful claims to the property.

I am proposing changing the law to make it lawful on the grounds that it is unethical for businesses and people to allow property to be sit fallow. Note that if they were to, for instance, find a renter, they could preserve the property.

You are going to counter with I don't believe in property rights now because they are all horribly capitalist but be honest you have seen in Soviet Russia that extreme collectivization and ignoring property rights is not the right approach. What's next? If I have a car in the garage that I am using to sell in 20 years can someone come in and steal it because it will be idle for 20 years?

You'd just lose title to it. Notice that I'm not proposing collectivization, just that the government have the right to confiscate things which are, 1., not being used productively, and 2. not gaining in value. So investments could not be confiscated, but a car sitting in the yard going from being worth 5k to 1k with nobody ever driving it would be. The judgement would probably be on whether or not the car is registered and insured; if it is, it's in use. If you don't want it confiscated and you don't want to pay for registration and insurance, then sell it, or take it apart for parts to use or whatever. For instance you'd happily own the home you live in.

And a wealthy person could even still have multiple homes, and just hire someone to take care of the homes they're not using. Since the homes are employing their caretakers by being in the possession of this rich person, they'd remain in use and productive. The key is that if something is not contributing to the economy then it should be seized and re-appropriated so that it will contribute to the national economy.

Yeah, I was basically echoing an earlier comment that your decision to let this guy live with you is not the same as the theft that is going on in this case. The people obviously could not afford these houses and both sides were at fault but McMansion hot button social excess word aside these people are stealing and anyone living there is breaking the law.

So? I don't care about the law, I care about ethics. And that has been a consistent statement of Mike's for a long time, in fact, he's kicked my ass with it several times. Well now I'm on the same page. The law does not exist for the sake of the law, but for people. If the law hurts people in a quantifiable ethical way, change it.

Why does nobody have the right to own a McMansion, what if they like having extra space?

Then they're killing people in Bangladesh by contributing to global warming when they crank up the heat in winter and the A/C in summer, so that they can have rooms twice as large as they need.

Does everyone have to live in a lot size and house size that you arbitrarily deem approrpiate? Every human being that lives on the Earth can be put in Projects within Texas, are you arguing against overconsumption or property rights?

Overconsumption--the right of companies to maintain property that does nothing, the fact they built these houses in the first place--is a component of our modern society of over-consumption. I am actually in favour of certain property rights.

Your counter will be that you think everyone should be living within their means and in harmony with fluffy kittens and puppies. I agree, in a perfect world alot of stuff would be great. Idealism doesn't interact well with reality.

Hell no. The government just needs to put as many checks as possible on the ability of people harm others. In this case it's just as simple as making zoning laws which limit the size of single-family dwellings, an extremely minor change to the existing law code. What's the big deal with that?

But what about a car collection?

If the cars are appreciating in value rather than depreciating, and are therefore an investment, you can register them under a special collectible car license which will exempt them from regular registration and insurance requirements, for instance. There, a solution that would be no more complex than what we already have, since for instance in Washington we already have special Collectible and Classic Car registrations for such vehicles.

What if the banks take notice of this and maintain them or send security with a higher sense of ownership?

This is a ludicrous overexagerration of what's being proposed, you're really not thinking about how the whole regulatory apparatus would work, you're just taking the worst possible interpretation of what I'm saying and running with it.

The people will still be homeless and the banks can easily afford it with the US Government pocketbook currently held permanently open for them, so is the objection that the banks are not performing a good faith effort with respect to exhibitting their ownership or that every possible unused house should be commandeered for people unwilling to observe property rights?

Well, I don't think we should be helping out the banks with bailouts, I think we should be nationalizing them for their failures, so I'm not sure if the rest of this is really relevant in context.

But the cost of the squatters removing the asset from the banks ledger will be replaced with taxpayers dollars from the bailout. What harm is me stealing $500 when the squatters are taking $100,000 in value from a much greater number of people? It's not like this is a victimless crime, there is a definite victim, just in this case this victim is currently very much disliked.

I want to nationalize the banks anyway.

So anything in my closet that I haven't used for whatever arbitrary time period you deem appropriate should be fair game for others? Should they be able to break in and steal anything they want with the view that it is not in use and can be theirs for the low low price of free?

There would obviously be regulatory limits to this, and the government would be the one doing the confiscation. I just supported this effort because it will force a change in the law (like the Recovered Factories did in Argentina, where enabling acts were passed to recognize the seizures), not because I think it's part of the ideal long-term functioning of a society.

I mean these people are going onto the banks property and stealing from them, the bank might not be using them or even be able to use them for 20 years. I might not be able or want to drink a wheel of cheese that I have in a hypothetical wine cellar for 30 years and should it be ok for someone to steal it because it is not actively producing any value? Oh, it has expected potential value in the future? And these houses don't? I hear radio advertisements for foreclosure auctions all the time, these aren't nothing the banks own, they are actually worth something.

And yet many of these houses are not being auctioned off. There are simply too many houses on the market--some should be seized by the government to, if nothing else, increase housing prices again for everyone else. And we've certainly simply handed the banks enough money to make this viable. Also, we should consider that, for instance, if an act produces jobs and livelihoods, it has a higher right to exist. So, for instance, if a company wanted to sell an old factory for a million dollars to someone who would knock it down and put up condos, I would seize the factory from the company and give it to the group of former workers who had an idea for restoring the factory to regular industrial use. But in the case of homes, it would be harder to seize them.

Super duper for Argentina who for the most part has a ton of issues along with problems with property rights. Saying that the US is in such dire straights that it must now start nationalizing everything in sight is going a bit far.

You may hope. I fear to the contrary. And Argentina is a reasonably developed country, anyway, not some African shitcan.

How regular is ok? If I buy a boat or a car or a vacation house and only use it once a year or every 5 years or 10 or 20? When is often enough to justify someone coming in and stealing it? Laws have been passed that determine these limits, these people are breaking these laws. We're not exactly to the soup line and anarchy phase where rule of law no longer applies.

I am proposing government seizure of assets, with the current theft modality being just a form of protest and activism toward that aim.

You aren't just harming the banks, you are harming the belief in individual property which is a BAD THING, unless you want to argue for collectivization and if so, well you are jumping further and further into the deep end, and will have less and less rational responses.

The belief in individual property is the bad thing, not harming the belief in it... It is better to work for accolades and fame than for wealth.

[Nephtys]

I am proposing changing the law to make it lawful on the grounds that it is unethical for businesses and people to allow property to be sit fallow. Note that if they were to, for instance, find a renter, they could preserve the property.

Do you live in reality? Define 'sit fallow'. Let's suppose someone has a house that she lives in for most of the year, and a house that she had built, with her money, employing construction workers, which she goes to rarely. If someone doesn't want to rent out their property, nobody in the real world is going to force them to, on the threat of seizure of all things.

You'd just lose title to it. Notice that I'm not proposing collectivization, just that the government have the right to confiscate things which are, 1., not being used productively, and 2. not gaining in value. So investments could not be confiscated, but a car sitting in the yard going from being worth 5k to 1k with nobody ever driving it would be. The judgement would probably be on whether or not the car is registered and insured; if it is, it's in use. If you don't want it confiscated and you don't want to pay for registration and insurance, then sell it, or take it apart for parts to use or whatever. For instance you'd happily own the home you live in.

And a wealthy person could even still have multiple homes, and just hire someone to take care of the homes they're not using. Since the homes are employing their caretakers by being in the possession of this rich person, they'd remain in use and productive. The key is that if something is not contributing to the economy then it should be seized and re-appropriated so that it will contribute to the national economy.

Note to self. Never invest in any commodity again. Because heaven forbid if I want to someday resell. Does this mean that EVERYTHING must contribute to the economy, now? How exactly is 'holding onto a house, so I can sell it in a few years' not contributing? I'm exchanging goods for money, aren't I?

Now tell me this, Comrade. Who is the one who decides if something is in 'productive use'? Did the workers and materials used to build a second house count? Or does it have to have a weekly maid-service? Perhaps gardening and landscaping services as well?

So? I don't care about the law, I care about ethics. And that has been a consistent statement of Mike's for a long time, in fact, he's kicked my ass with it several times. Well now I'm on the same page. The law does not exist for the sake of the law, but for people. If the law hurts people in a quantifiable ethical way, change it.

And undercutting laws you feel are unethical by just ignoring it is not how you maintain a functional, law-abiding society. You have to change it by the system, else your new 'enlightened' law may be violated as easily.

Then they're killing people in Bangladesh by contributing to global warming when they crank up the heat in winter and the A/C in summer, so that they can have rooms twice as large as they need.

And your use of the internet is contributing to global warming, by powering a device that consumes hundreds of watts for luxury, recreational purposes. Is that a 20 LCD inch monitor? It's far too big. You can read just fine on a 10 inch black and white. It's clearly twice as large as you need.

And yet many of these houses are not being auctioned off. There are simply too many houses on the market--some should be seized by the government to, if nothing else, increase housing prices again for everyone else. And we've certainly simply handed the banks enough money to make this viable. Also, we should consider that, for instance, if an act produces jobs and livelihoods, it has a higher right to exist. So, for instance, if a company wanted to sell an old factory for a million dollars to someone who would knock it down and put up condos, I would seize the factory from the company and give it to the group of former workers who had an idea for restoring the factory to regular industrial use. But in the case of homes, it would be harder to seize them.

So because the banks may be waiting for some houses that means it's automatically bad, right? Heaven forbid they be allowed to auction it at a time of their choosing. It's not like they don't WANT to sell the damn things, it's just that it'd be a waste at this moment. As for your scenario... why would we need the factory at all? Does the company make money with it? If so, why demolish it? What advantage would your squatter-factory exactly provide, except by making products that nobody wants?

You may hope. I fear to the contrary. And Argentina is a reasonably developed country, anyway, not some African shitcan.

So if nationalization works for one country, it must work for them all? It's not even remotely similar to the US in terms of scale, international economic status and other major factors.

Overconsumption--the right of companies to maintain property that does nothing, the fact they built these houses in the first place--is a component of our modern society of over-consumption. I am actually in favour of certain property rights.

The belief in individual property is the bad thing, not harming the belief in it... It is better to work for accolades and fame than for wealth.

...Huh? Some property rights are good, and some are bad?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Do you live in reality? Define 'sit fallow'. Let's suppose someone has a house that she lives in for most of the year, and a house that she had built, with her money, employing construction workers, which she goes to rarely. If someone doesn't want to rent out their property, nobody in the real world is going to force them to, on the threat of seizure of all things.

Well, I admit I had mostly envisioned this in terms of the banks, and you have a point about direct private ownership. I was more thinking when I started in this thread about forcing large joint-stock companies to either use it or lose it, very much inspired by the Reclaimed Factory movement in Argentina.

Note to self. Never invest in any commodity again. Because heaven forbid if I want to someday resell. Does this mean that EVERYTHING must contribute to the economy, now? How exactly is 'holding onto a house, so I can sell it in a few years' not contributing? I'm exchanging goods for money, aren't I?

Now tell me this, Comrade. Who is the one who decides if something is in 'productive use'? Did the workers and materials used to build a second house count? Or does it have to have a weekly maid-service? Perhaps gardening and landscaping services as well?

I think it's more an issue of national interest, Nephyts. I.e., can the nation be improved by seizing this property and giving it to unemployed workers? To homeless people? Instead of a hard and fast rule, it may be for instance that such seizures ought only happen in recessions to aid in the national recovery, and as a form of punishment for people who aided in the creation of the recession conditions, for instance.

And undercutting laws you feel are unethical by just ignoring it is not how you maintain a functional, law-abiding society. You have to change it by the system, else your new 'enlightened' law may be violated as easily.

Which is what I proposed to do... I, personally, would never steal anyone's possessions (leading an effort to reclaim a factory, on the other hand, I could get on board with). I just support and understand people coming from that standpoint.

And your use of the internet is contributing to global warming, by powering a device that consumes hundreds of watts for luxury, recreational purposes. Is that a 20 LCD inch monitor? It's far too big. You can read just fine on a 10 inch black and white. It's clearly twice as large as you need.

Actually I'm using a 15in monitor right now which was manufactured in 1997. I am extremely frugal, for the record, so please don't make such assumptions about me. I can, in fact, watch movies, draw and view colour pictures, and write and read on such a monitor just fine, and it still works, so why would I ever want to buy a bigger one? Granted, I have laptop monitors, which are no sophisticated but are just the same size, I use this one so I can preserve the rather finnicky displays in those, so I can ideally keep my laptops at a lifespan of 4 years between buying new computers, and to do so I turn off their monitors, run them in clamshell mode, and hook them up to this old 15in.

So because the banks may be waiting for some houses that means it's automatically bad, right? Heaven forbid they be allowed to auction it at a time of their choosing. It's not like they don't WANT to sell the damn things, it's just that it'd be a waste at this moment. As for your scenario... why would we need the factory at all? Does the company make money with it? If so, why demolish it? What advantage would your squatter-factory exactly provide, except by making products that nobody wants?

The workers often adapt the factories to profits... It is fact that the Recovered Factory movement in Argentina has been successful. At any rate, the banks in particular should be punished for destroying the livelihood of many Americans, and then requiring hundreds of billions of dollars to keep afloat, by having their fallow assets seized and turned over to the impoverished. If that happens, they will have the incentive in the future (it's not like they're being allowed to fail) to avoid such foolish decisions as created this current situation. Same thing, if the factory is not closed, or if it is sold to someone else who wants to run it as a factory, the company pockets the profit, giving them a strong incentive to do that instead of allowing the workers to take it over through inaction.

If these laws were adapted, how many recovered factories would actually exist? Very few, of course, because the businesses would sell the factories to other corporations or investors for profit who would then run them as regular businesses, rather than lose their investment entirely. It just prevents the mothballing of the factories and guarantees the rights of the workers.

So if nationalization works for one country, it must work for them all? It's not even remotely similar to the US in terms of scale, international economic status and other major factors.

This would be a very different form of nationalization than took place in communist countries, or Europe, where nationalization tended to have companies run by the government instead of turned over to workers' cooperatives. So certainly this is true, but that's not a big deal. This method may work here; if a different form of nationalization would work better, I'd support that instead.

...Huh? Some property rights are good, and some are bad?

Yes.

Why must it be an all-or-nothing proposition? It is surely amusing that I get accused of hewing to extremes, and then we have situations like this.

[Broomstick]

I doubt that the accomodations for the homeless are the same in freezing chicago as in the tropical southern states.

I'm not familar with how these things are handled in Florida, but in Chicago the homeless frequently sleep in the parks and at the lakefront during the warmer months. In winter, many avoid the shelters for fear of crime and attempt to find a public space (a library, for example, or a train station) in which to spend the day during winter in a warm environment and stay awake in the night - if they can avoid being run off by security or the police while trying to sleep during the day. At night, they might ride trains if they can scrape up the fare (if you plan, you can ride all night on one fare if you use the right transfer points, never having to leave a station or the system). When the weather gets really harsh the shelters fill up and then close, leaving the rest to find what shelter they can, often in subway stations or the lower levels of the Loop, trying to find vent outlets from the skyscrapers for the warmth they might provide.

Nonetheless, every year people DO freeze to death in Chicago.

Some of the wealthier suburbs have been caught picking up homeless in their area in police cruisers, then abandoning them in other cities.

It sucks to be homeless, regardless of where you are.

[Broomstick]

The car, good Sir, is being used. Same thing with Broomstick's comments. The property is being used--there is a house on part of it, the rest of it is being maintained as a nature preserve, so, no, it's not terra nullius. I am proposing after all that the law be changed, so that property which sits unused (as in a whole plot, and preservation as a nature preserve could be registered with the government, under strict terms, to prevent this from happening) could be seized and redistributed. Now, note that such nature preserve factors are already in use. You can 'landbank' your property, getting paid to agree to never develop it, and legally it can no longer be developed. So if you want a nature preserve on your property, landbank it, it's eternally a nature preserve, and now it cannot be seized because it remains continuously in use as a nature preserve. Very simple.

Except my friend does NOT want it as an eternal nature preserve. At the moment that is what it is, but he bought the land not just to enjoy it but as an investment/hedge against hard times. He wants the option to develop it on his terms, or to subdivide and sell it, or farm it, or leave it as is as he decides and not some other. That is, in fact, what "ownership" means, the OWNER decides, not society or the government or a bunch of squatters.

If the government has a pressing need for your possessions then there is the matter of compensation, but it should be for a real and urgent need and not on a whim or because someone else will use it for a purpose they deem more useful than what the owner does.

[Simplicius]

Do you live in reality? Define 'sit fallow'. Let's suppose someone has a house that she lives in for most of the year, and a house that she had built, with her money, employing construction workers, which she goes to rarely. If someone doesn't want to rent out their property, nobody in the real world is going to force them to, on the threat of seizure of all things.

Summer/vacation homes, which are without question luxury items, can have negative effects on the communities in which they exist which should be taken into consideration when discussing the right of someone to build second and third homes which are occupied for only a small part of the year, to wit:

-They fruitlessly occupy a parcel of land which might otherwise be turned to a purpose which directly benefits the community. Case in point: building large summer homes along the coast and on the islands of Maine removes large chunks of waterfront access which might otherwise be used by fishermen.

-They place financial burdens on local communities and industries by driving up property values. Again, case: large summer houses built along the Maine coast and on the islands drive up the value of waterfront property because of the potential for development and sale. This prices fishermen out of the market for waterfront property, despite the fact that it is an essential resource for the individual fisherman. The inflation of property values also places a financial burden on a town that has a lot of waterfront property, but is not actually inhabited by wealthy people, both in the form of property taxes and in its share of funding for a school district where funding obligations are apportioned by property values rather than by share of students in the district or other criteria.

-This says nothing of the tree-clearing and soil damage caused by construction and construction equipment, the loss of farmland by sale to real estate developers, and the inevitable sprawl as people build more houses, all of which are inherent to all home construction but which are incredibly pointless and wasteful when the homes in question are only occupied for a minor part of the year.

Bearing these facts in mind, I see no reason not to require privately-owned residences to be occupied or made available for rent year-round. Given the cost, it is only proper to recover the most possible utility.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except my friend does NOT want it as an eternal nature preserve. At the moment that is what it is, but he bought the land not just to enjoy it but as an investment/hedge against hard times. He wants the option to develop it on his terms, or to subdivide and sell it, or farm it, or leave it as is as he decides and not some other. That is, in fact, what "ownership" means, the OWNER decides, not society or the government or a bunch of squatters.

If the government has a pressing need for your possessions then there is the matter of compensation, but it should be for a real and urgent need and not on a whim or because someone else will use it for a purpose they deem more useful than what the owner does.

But doesn't so radical a change to American society as I'm proposing basically say that these changes would take place in the context of a change in the whole of society toward one that takes care of its citizens instead of letting them die in the street?

[Broomstick]

Except my friend does NOT want it as an eternal nature preserve. At the moment that is what it is, but he bought the land not just to enjoy it but as an investment/hedge against hard times. He wants the option to develop it on his terms, or to subdivide and sell it, or farm it, or leave it as is as he decides and not some other. That is, in fact, what "ownership" means, the OWNER decides, not society or the government or a bunch of squatters.

If the government has a pressing need for your possessions then there is the matter of compensation, but it should be for a real and urgent need and not on a whim or because someone else will use it for a purpose they deem more useful than what the owner does.

But doesn't so radical a change to American society as I'm proposing basically say that these changes would take place in the context of a change in the whole of society toward one that takes care of its citizens instead of letting them die in the street?

My friend is providing work to one unemployed tenant supporting a disabled spouse (me) despite difficulty in getting enough work for himself.

I know of three tenants for whom he has waived or cut rent on a temporary basis due to family crisis (in one case, unemployment combined with cancer), unemployment, or other individual disaster despite rising utility and maintenance costs.

I know of a former employee of his for whom he paid for major reconstructive dental work, including bridges and dentures.

I know of four instances where he wound up selling rental homes to the tenants at very reasonable and manageable rates through private contracts when said tenants could not obtain loans from the local banks. I should mention that none of those arrangements went bad, those people are still living in their homes and are not in fear of foreclosure.

I know of one instance recently when a local businessman needed repairs to his building but did not have the funds to pay for it and this person made the repairs for free, providing both labor and materials.

He has done all this and more without fanfare or in any expectation of return.

Yes, owns a very nice spread of land. He also gives a fuck of a lot to his local community. He is able to be generous in part because of his investments in real estate, both rental property and his little spread he lives on, that gives him enough confidence/cushion to be so generous even in times such as these. He is already taking care of his fellow citizens. If you strip him of his assets then he will cease to be so generous, reserving what resources he has left for his immediate family. I fail to see where society gains by stripping him of his property.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

My friend is providing work to one unemployed tenant supporting a disabled spouse (me) despite difficulty in getting enough work for himself.

I know of three tenants for whom he has waived or cut rent on a temporary basis due to family crisis (in one case, unemployment combined with cancer), unemployment, or other individual disaster despite rising utility and maintenance costs.

I know of a former employee of his for whom he paid for major reconstructive dental work, including bridges and dentures.

I know of four instances where he wound up selling rental homes to the tenants at very reasonable and manageable rates through private contracts when said tenants could not obtain loans from the local banks. I should mention that none of those arrangements went bad, those people are still living in their homes and are not in fear of foreclosure.

I know of one instance recently when a local businessman needed repairs to his building but did not have the funds to pay for it and this person made the repairs for free, providing both labor and materials.

He has done all this and more without fanfare or in any expectation of return.

Yes, owns a very nice spread of land. He also gives a fuck of a lot to his local community. He is able to be generous in part because of his investments in real estate, both rental property and his little spread he lives on, that gives him enough confidence/cushion to be so generous even in times such as these. He is already taking care of his fellow citizens. If you strip him of his assets then he will cease to be so generous, reserving what resources he has left for his immediate family. I fail to see where society gains by stripping him of his property.

The problem with public policy is that it must be aimed at saving us from the worst elements in society, Broomstick, as I think we both realize.

Such a genuinely generous individual is sadly a very rare sort of person, I mean, if all men of even just moderate wealth were like that, the whole country would be immensely better off, after all.

[K. A. Pital]

I want to ask KrauserKrauser why nationalization of banks is a bad idea.

Those institutions massively failed. Causing misery in the process. You are implying that belief in private property overrules everything - morality, moral implications, necessity to reduce human suffering and even the very logical problem-solving approach is somehow "irrational" since it ignores some sort of "belief"?

Tell you what, "beliefs" are crap. If a person has valid and logical reasons to support property in an economic situation, that's one thing. If another economic situation demands a change of property, and the only thing stopping this are "beliefs" - akin to religion failing to reconcile the fact that supernatural has no scientific evidence - then those beliefs are dangerous and harmful.

[Broomstick]

My friend is providing work to one unemployed tenant supporting a disabled spouse (me) despite difficulty in getting enough work for himself.

I know of three tenants for whom he has waived or cut rent on a temporary basis due to family crisis (in one case, unemployment combined with cancer), unemployment, or other individual disaster despite rising utility and maintenance costs.

I know of a former employee of his for whom he paid for major reconstructive dental work, including bridges and dentures.

I know of four instances where he wound up selling rental homes to the tenants at very reasonable and manageable rates through private contracts when said tenants could not obtain loans from the local banks. I should mention that none of those arrangements went bad, those people are still living in their homes and are not in fear of foreclosure.

I know of one instance recently when a local businessman needed repairs to his building but did not have the funds to pay for it and this person made the repairs for free, providing both labor and materials.

He has done all this and more without fanfare or in any expectation of return.

Yes, owns a very nice spread of land. He also gives a fuck of a lot to his local community. He is able to be generous in part because of his investments in real estate, both rental property and his little spread he lives on, that gives him enough confidence/cushion to be so generous even in times such as these. He is already taking care of his fellow citizens. If you strip him of his assets then he will cease to be so generous, reserving what resources he has left for his immediate family. I fail to see where society gains by stripping him of his property.

The problem with public policy is that it must be aimed at saving us from the worst elements in society, Broomstick, as I think we both realize.

Such a genuinely generous individual is sadly a very rare sort of person, I mean, if all men of even just moderate wealth were like that, the whole country would be immensely better off, after all.

A major difference between you and me is that while I believe most people can be induced to do the proper thing, you seem to believe they must be bludgeoned into it. I have to wonder if your upbringing factors into this, given such top-down authority as ruled your childhood. In contrast, my parents did not use corporal punishment but rather tried to run the household in such a manner that the children learned cooperation and mutual aid.

Such generosity is not as uncommon as you believe, although I will be the first to concede it is not nearly common enough. I could also give the example of my dentist, who has been cutting his fees for services to people such as myself who are short on money with a significant impact on his own income. I could offer up a local lawyer who donates his flying skills, airplane, and time to transporting medical patients from remote areas to Chicago area hospitals entirely on his dime. There are MANY such charitable gestures every day in this country. People can do these things only when, in addition to feeling an obligation towards the larger society, they themselves feel secure in their own possessions and assets so they need not fear that in being generous they will be left destitute.

While there are times and circumstances where caring for others must be coerced out of people I much prefer to structure society in such a way that people are willing to do so on their own, viewing it as in their own self-interest to support a wider society. I realize this is idealistic of me, but while I don't think we'll ever achieve the perfect society I view perfection as something to work towards nonetheless.

You are implying that belief in private property overrules everything - morality, moral implications, necessity to reduce human suffering and even the very logical problem-solving approach is somehow "irrational" since it ignores some sort of "belief"?

Yes, there is an almost religious devotion to private property as a concept and sacred cow in the US. It is fair to say that at times our society seems to value property and money over human life. I view it as an unhealthy extreme of capitalism.

Oddly enough, Americans will also give generously out of their own pocket to total strangers literally half a world away while figuratively kicking their poor neighbors into the gutter. Despite being born and raised here I find it baffling. It is definitely not a good trait.

[lordofFNORD]

Summer/vacation homes, which are without question luxury items, can have negative effects on the communities in which they exist which should be taken into consideration when discussing the right of someone to build second and third homes which are occupied for only a small part of the year, to wit:
<snip>
They place financial burdens on local communities and industries by driving up property values. Again, case: large summer houses built along the Maine coast and on the islands drive up the value of waterfront property because of the potential for development and sale. This prices fishermen out of the market for waterfront property, despite the fact that it is an essential resource for the individual fisherman.

And then we have the government deciding what constitutes "productive use of land". Yes, it sucks to be a fisherman as waterfront property becomes more expensive. It also sucks to be a banker when home prices are falling through the floor. But it's only OK to screw the bankers?

In the judgment of people who have money, and put money on it, the land is worth more as a home, even an "unproductive" seasonal one, than as a fishing wharf. If fishing is no longer cost-effective as an industry in certain places, then it is foolish to subsidize it by penalizing the housebuilding industry. The world-wide fish stocks will thank you.

Yes, there will be some hardship as society adjusts. But resources are better spent easing the transition, rather than delaying it. If you want to screw the rich, tax them. That way, the money can be spent providing homes for disabled unemployed homeless rather than lazy caretaker "renters".

The inflation of property values also places a financial burden on a town that has a lot of waterfront property, but is not actually inhabited by wealthy people, both in the form of property taxes and in its share of funding for a school district where funding obligations are apportioned by property values rather than by share of students in the district or other criteria.

What, the seasonal home owners don't pay taxes? In fact, it should bring more tax money into the community, as the McMansion owners would pay MORE taxes than the guy with the average house.
That school funding system can screw people over, it's true. But again, this isn't something that can be stopped long term: rich people like waterfront property, so it rises in value. Living in an area with high properties values is more expensive, because it is presumably more desirable. And does benefit the larger area, providing increased funding for schools throughout the state.

This says nothing of the tree-clearing and soil damage caused by construction and construction equipment, the loss of farmland by sale to real estate developers, and the inevitable sprawl as people build more houses, all of which are inherent to all home construction but which are incredibly pointless and wasteful when the homes in question are only occupied for a minor part of the year.

This is true not only of seasonal homes, but all homes, and indeed, most industry. While society does need to do a better job recognizing environmental costs, occupancy rules seems an odd way to do that.

[Simplicius]

And then we have the government deciding what constitutes "productive use of land". Yes, it sucks to be a fisherman as waterfront property becomes more expensive. It also sucks to be a banker when home prices are falling through the floor. But it's only OK to screw the bankers?

I fail to see what, specifically, is wrong with the government deciding what constitutes productive land use - after all, it does collect data on tax revenues and the value to the state of the industries operating within - especially when (my) definition of 'productive' is so broad as to include residences, outbuildings, and the parcel of land they sit on, provided those residences are actually being lived in.

In the judgment of people who have money, and put money on it, the land is worth more as a home, even an "unproductive" seasonal one, than as a fishing wharf. If fishing is no longer cost-effective as an industry in certain places, then it is foolish to subsidize it by penalizing the housebuilding industry. The world-wide fish stocks will thank you.

In this specific case, we are speaking of a 26,000-man, $860 million dollar industry. The reason why waterfront access is so critical - and why high real estate values make it difficult to preserve - is that the industry is composed to relatively small companies scattered along the coast, rather than massive factory operations - and the lobster fishery is composed of individual fishermen owning individual boats (which has made that fishery a sustainable one, BTW). And we are speaking of only 25 miles of working waterfront left out of a usable total of 175 miles, and a total coastline of 5300 miles.

Are you really so prepared to hamstring a major industry just for the sake of letting second or third homes sit idle for all but a few months in summer?

Yes, there will be some hardship as society adjusts. But resources are better spent easing the transition, rather than delaying it. If you want to screw the rich, tax them. That way, the money can be spent providing homes for disabled unemployed homeless rather than lazy caretaker "renters".

Since I am not seeking to screw the rich in this proposal, I am not proposing a tax. I am merely trying to eliminate wasteful idle construction, which is exactly what a summer home is when it is vacant and locked for 75 percent of the year.

In any case, there is a simple enough solution if you are rich: live in the house you build, like everyone else does. Does it mean you only get one 'real' house? Maybe so, but that is no hardship.

What, the seasonal home owners don't pay taxes? In fact, it should bring more tax money into the community, as the McMansion owners would pay MORE taxes than the guy with the average house.

In this case my point was foiled by the construction of my sentence. By "uninhabited by wealthy people," I was trying to say that these specific sections of waterfront have not yet had luxury homes placed upon them. Real estate being what it is, that land will nonetheless be valued highly because of the prospective luxury home construction - "prime waterfront property" being what it is - regardless of the actual productive value of the land. This leads to property tax valuations disproportionate to the wealth of the person who owns and lives/works on that land, caused in large part by the real estate market for luxury houses.

This naturally creates problems for people, sometimes to the point that they have no choice but to sell their homes and sometimes businesses.

That school funding system can screw people over, it's true. But again, this isn't something that can be stopped long term: rich people like waterfront property, so it rises in value. Living in an area with high properties values is more expensive, because it is presumably more desirable. And does benefit the larger area, providing increased funding for schools throughout the state.

Why should the desirability of a piece of land for the purposes of constructing a luxury item upon it take precedence over the desirability of a piece of land because it is where someone's home or business is already located?

In the extant system I am referencing, school funding is actually a share paid to the district by the town, based on the property values of the town. While there are specific problems with this system, the fact remains that with this system in place, there is a financial burden on towns with desirable land whose residents are of limited means which will remain unchanged as long as real estate values are driven up by demand for luxury items by people who don't even intend to live in the town year-round.

The benefit mainly exists when the rich people actually live in the town; then they chip in for schools because their kids are students. Summer residents don't have that kind of stake.

This is true not only of seasonal homes, but all homes, and indeed, most industry. While society does need to do a better job recognizing environmental costs, occupancy rules seems an odd way to do that.

I'm not sure why you characterize mandatory occupancy as the way to recognize environmental costs, rather than - as I said - a way to ensure that a certain amount of use is gotten out of a luxury item, in exchange for the impact it makes on the community in which is is located. Because, quite frankly, the stance that "you can do whatever you can afford to do" can only be allowed to stand insofar as it is not detrimental to the society at large.

If the issue at hand was factories that were only in operation a few months out of the year, I would say the same thing. When the issue is retail boxes or cheap restaurants in poor locations that fold in just a few months and sit empty, waiting for a new tenant, I do say the same thing. Unused construction is a waste of land and resources; what makes this waste acceptable beyond "it was the whim of someone with the cash or credit to go through with it"?

[KrauserKrauser]

I want to ask KrauserKrauser why nationalization of banks is a bad idea.

Those institutions massively failed. Causing misery in the process. You are implying that belief in private property overrules everything - morality, moral implications, necessity to reduce human suffering and even the very logical problem-solving approach is somehow "irrational" since it ignores some sort of "belief"?

Tell you what, "beliefs" are crap. If a person has valid and logical reasons to support property in an economic situation, that's one thing. If another economic situation demands a change of property, and the only thing stopping this are "beliefs" - akin to religion failing to reconcile the fact that supernatural has no scientific evidence - then those beliefs are dangerous and harmful.

Well, at this time the nationalization of banks seems like a good way to clear out the management of the banks. I think that private ownership of the banks is theoretically more efficient than anything government run, but the feedback system in a lot of the privately owned businesses have become increasingly inbred. Instead of a board of directors built from major stockholders that each have a stake in the success of the business, CEOs take the helm and appoint series of yesmen that never question their valiant leader in fear of being seperated from the magical money teat.

That move towards CEO run instead of owner run management allows for both wilder profits but accompanying wilder risks with situations as the current banking industry shows. When one man, or a series of one man operations are getting together with a group think of lets make our money real fast and GTFO, government intervention would be called for. They are no longer serving their customers and have been able to grow so large their potential fall would be to great of an impact for the economy to absorb or the ramifications are too great to even risk it.

I view alot of the upcoming moves as a necessary evil of as many have said here, the free market gone amok, but that still does not convince me that any given government run comany is ever going to be on average more efficient or effective as the same private run company.

I for instance do not think that the current change in economic conditions require a mass reconsideration of personal property rights in the US, which is one reason for such a large amount of foreign investment in the US where if nothing else property rights are garaunteed. Start taking away the confidence in teh US property rights and you will really see how bad this situation can get.

My main objection here is the support for these squatters and the belief that they should be above prosecution because they are performing a informal protest.

[Broomstick]

IF someone's life is in imminent danger due to weather conditions then breaking into an unoccupied house for temporary shelter is excusable. I'm not sure of the exact legalities involved, but US law does allow for circumstances and emergencies where you can break the normal rules in order to save a life or prevent great bodily harm.

But that's not what we're talking about here. The OP isn't people seeking shelter from a storm, it's people commandeering someone else's property and setting up house inside it. That's not emergency shelter, that's theft.

Now, if we have an egregious situation where we have masses of empty housing and masses of homeless people that's a serious problem, but if no one is in immediate danger of death or great harm I can't see letting the mob simply take stuff. IF there is to be a transfer of property it should be done through legal means (which may means changing laws or providing compensation), in an orderly fashion, and in a publicly transparent way - not by people sneaking into abandoned houses and squatting long-term.

[salm]

Now, if we have an egregious situation where we have masses of empty housing and masses of homeless people that's a serious problem, but if no one is in immediate danger of death or great harm I can't see letting the mob simply take stuff. IF there is to be a transfer of property it should be done through legal means (which may means changing laws or providing compensation), in an orderly fashion, and in a publicly transparent way - not by people sneaking into abandoned houses and squatting long-term.

I agree that it would be better to do it by legal means but sometimes it´s not possible to get things done by legal means. These people taking the homes could quite easily be compared to the good old Rosa Parks incident which was illegal at the time but got things rolling. Sometimes illegal things are not only right but neccessary.

[General Zod]

I agree that it would be better to do it by legal means but sometimes it´s not possible to get things done by legal means. These people taking the homes could quite easily be compared to the good old Rosa Parks incident which was illegal at the time but got things rolling. Sometimes illegal things are not only right but neccessary.

It's one thing if somebody's rights is blatantly violated, but I don't really think you can make that kind of comparison here. Although cheap mass housing similar to what's being done in South America (taking used rail cars and turning them into small, decent quality homes) as an interim solution seems like one feasible way to solve the housing crisis. The only problem is convincing Americans to live in anything other than McMansion's that they have to bankrupt themselves for.

[salm]

I agree that it would be better to do it by legal means but sometimes it´s not possible to get things done by legal means. These people taking the homes could quite easily be compared to the good old Rosa Parks incident which was illegal at the time but got things rolling. Sometimes illegal things are not only right but neccessary.

It's one thing if somebody's rights is blatantly violated, but I don't really think you can make that kind of comparison here. Although cheap mass housing similar to what's being done in South America (taking used rail cars and turning them into small, decent quality homes) as an interim solution seems like one feasible way to solve the housing crisis. The only problem is convincing Americans to live in anything other than McMansion's that they have to bankrupt themselves for.

What kind of rights to homes do people in florida actually have? Here people who are too poor to get a home get social welfare which includes the rent and some other basic stuff.
Is there anything like that in Florida or is it really possible that people are forced to live in tents and cars?

If there is no such thing in Florida i´d consider their right blatantly violated since i think that everybody has a right to a home.

[General Zod]

What kind of rights to homes do people in florida actually have? Here people who are too poor to get a home get social welfare which includes the rent and some other basic stuff.
Is there anything like that in Florida or is it really possible that people are forced to live in tents and cars?

Unfortunately there's no such protection in the US. And not only is it possible for people to be forced to live in tents and cars, it's happening right now. There are homeless shelters in some cities, but thanks to the exploding homeless population demand is outstripping avaiilability, and generally staying is on a per night basis as opposed to anything long term.

If there is no such thing in Florida i´d consider their right blatantly violated since i think that everybody has a right to a home.

I'm mixed on this. On the one hand if everyone is entitled to a home and essentials no matter what, then where's the incentive to work and help the economy by being productive? On the other I do have to agree that everyone should have access to shelter against the elements, but free housing should ideally be used as an interim between getting work and your own place not paid for by the state.

[salm]

If there is no such thing in Florida i´d consider their right blatantly violated since i think that everybody has a right to a home.

I'm mixed on this. On the one hand if everyone is entitled to a home and essentials no matter what, then where's the incentive to work and help the economy by being productive? On the other I do have to agree that everyone should have access to shelter against the elements, but free housing should ideally be used as an interim between getting work and your own place not paid for by the state.

The incentive is to get richer of course. And if you are richer and can provide the rent for yourself then the government won´t pay for you. Note that in this system you wouldn´t own the place. The govenment provides the people with the rent. They don´t own the places.
Another, secondary incentive is the fact that a lot of people want to provide for themselves. Many people are simply not comfortable with leeching.
Third it´s not that easy and problem free to get money from the goverment. You have to show up at the unemployment office every few weeks and prove that you tried to get a job, otherwise you will get less money (you´ll never lose your rent, though). There are other mechanisms that make it uncomfortable as well. Granted, there are ways to circumvent these mechanisms but all in all it makes it more problematic to be unemployed.

No question, there are problems with this because there are allways leeches who will not try to get a job. The vast majority of people however, wants to provide for themselves. There´s a problem with jobs that pay very low. People who could get a job, but only a job that pays, say 50€ more than what they´d get out of wellfare, are less likely to take that job.
But i think the advantages of not forcing anybody into homelessnes justify the disadvanteges of making it possible for the leeches to survive.

[salm]

Now that i think of it it would probably also be a smart thing to introduce positive feedback from the governemt. If a person can prove that he tried very hard to get a job but still couldn´t get one he should get more money from the government.