Well, let's play it out. A squatter steals an owner's property while they're away on a Summer-long vacation. Later, the squatter spends some temporary time away from the property. During this time, another squatter comes along and steals the property from them. And so on. How does this not just lead to an unending string of lawlessness. Further, why would anyone invest in building and maintaining housing when their property can just be stolen from them without consequence? We'll be back to straw huts in no time. Claiming that renting housing is "oppressive" is absurd in the extreme. It is an arrangement of mutual benefit that is done voluntarily. It provides flexibility, mobility, and access that home ownership doesn't. In fact, the ability to invest in housing increases access to housing, not the other way around. No one is arguing that we should eliminate tenant protections against arbitrary eviction or unfair treatment. We should simply have sane protections for property ownership. There is no circumstances in which the theft of property is a smart or sane solution.
> neo-fascist
Your turn. How is pointing out that people have been seduced by a worldview that is neither fact based nor logical "neo-fascist".
> A squatter steals an owner's property while they're away on a Summer-long vacation
Realistically, if this would happen in real life (which isn't very common, compared to proper "occupations", which this is not), the police would kick them out quickly, as it's the owner's primary resident.
No one is arguing for squatters right for other's primary residence. The division comes when you start talking about properties that are bought/owned for the sole purpose of speculation.
There’s someone in this thread arguing exactly for squatters right for another’s primary residence, barring their ability to organize some kind self defense. Didn’t sound great
As always, there are extremists on both sides, that's no lie.
Generally, most people aren't so extreme as to say private ownership shouldn't exist at all. At least from most of the people I interact with here in Barcelona.
Besides what people think is right/wrong, the police does help you (quickly) to throw out people that try to invade your residence that you actively live in.
No, you just claimed one comment ago that "no one is arguing" that. Don't make those kinds of assertions in a situation when you know full well someone in this very thread is likely to do it.
Calling people you disagree with extremists is just an insult and it's not nice. It's rude. There is nothing extremists about fighting for a world where no one is oppressed and everyone can develop to the heights of one's potential.
The criterion of abandonment of private property I think should differ based on the local customs and on the type of private property, so for houses for example maybe it should be a year or 2 of you not living there before your house is considered abandoned and someone can live there. For for example mines I think they should be considered abandoned and ready for someone else to use much faster.
The main problem of private property is that it leaves some people without access to a place to live or means to subsist on, so they either have to die of hunger or agree to get exploited. This makes this concept oppressive.
> Your turn. How is pointing out that people have been seduced by a worldview that is neither fact based nor logical "neo-fascist".
I explained above why is such a worldview logical, if you have some issues please answer. On the other hand utilizing such dehumanizing rhetoric like "infection by a mind virus" is not acceptable and is typical of people aligned politically with far-right, such as Elon Musk, who is among the most popular users of this term.
How dare you use "dehumanizing" rhetoric against me, you far-right neo-fascist! That's rude!
The thing about hypocrisy is that it reveals that you think you are superior to others and therefore entitled to rule over them using whatever means necessary, including dishonesty and, ultimately, force. It is the definition of anti-social and is considered unacceptable in society for good reason.
The mind is much like a computer: garbage in, garbage out. You have essentially been mis- (or mal-) programmed. If you were to free your mind of these destructive ideas, you could live a freer, happier life and contribute to society instead of trying to destroy it. Make the choice if you still can, for the longer you hold on to evil, the stronger its grasp on you.
I don't agree with you, I don't think you discuss in a good faith. You seem to write in a very emotional state, which possibly does not make you stable enough to engage in a coherent discussion.
I think everyone should have an opportunity to develop to the heights of one's potential and I think no one should be oppressed and exploited. I don't agree with you that I am anti-social or I have destructive ideas. Moreover, I am a very happy person, I consider myself completely satisfied with my personal life and that's why I am willing to engage in a fight for other people's opportunity to develop, even if they were unlucky in their life and they didn't have access to those opportunities. I am fine with propagating a complete deconstruction of norms very strongly naturalized in our current society if I find them justifying oppression and exploitation.
> A lot of squatters want to abolish the possibility of someone having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live
That's exactly how you end up with no new or maintained housing, utilities and other services. How do you imagine system like that working besides a totalitarian government directly taking over all private property and rationing housing? (I assure the housing situation in Spain is not even remotely as bad as it was in the USSR).
> don't have a logical counter-argument.
Trying to form logical arguments that refute completely absurd and irrational ones is not particularly productive...
