Show Posts
76
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Thread for when someone on the other side does something good
« on: April 03, 2024, 06:34:07 PM »I had a long post typed up that referenced South Africa's white farmers building arsenals and fortresses to protect their land being taken as part of the land re-distribution plan that allotted 30% of white land to be put in to black hands (about 10% happened through government purchases on behalf of black farmers and another 15% through black people just buying the land at market rates from whites, so this was never a real seizure despite everyone that knows what the Rhodesian flag looks like looping a video of the ANC chanting "kill the Boer").
All that being said, there is a through line that applies to how land was first declared "property" and given the full backing of the state in these United States of America.
That the punishment for trespassing should be extrajudicial vigilante execution is a pretty great example of the property rights brainworms at the very core of the US. Worth considering that the gun is quick to come out to "protect" the property when that was also the means used to procure it originally.
I'm not ashamed to say that I have no idea what you're getting at here.
see my follow up, might be more confusing or clear up my thoughts. I report, you decide.
I only took the very last sentence to be germane to the last couple pages ITT:QuoteTo the extent that sys and others are arguing that property rights are a foundational precursor to society and without them there would be uncontrolled vigilante justice by the strong against the weak--It is worth remembering that they are the ones that reject the state exercising due process on behalf of both parties and want to get straight to shooting.
I think that's deliberately mischaracterizing what most folks are getting at in order to fit the philosophical points you wanted to make. "Due process" means a right to have your day in court, it does not mean you are entitled to maintain the status quo until that day comes. The question is who should bear the burden unless and until that day comes.
The assumption I've been operating under (because no one ITT has said otherwise) is that: (1) in most places, the law says the property owner bears the burden of allowing alleged squatters to remain rent free until a court orders otherwise, and (2) anti-squatting laws would shift it so that an owner/landlord has the option to initially prove that they own the property and the other person is not entitled to be there, in which case they are not required to accommodate the person until a court decides the issue.
My issue is you just think way too highly of cops' ability to determine "proof", especially in a complicated situation such as a tenant dispute. Like, a wrongful arrest is very disruptive and problematic and we all agree it is wrong but it is not nearly as problematic or permanently damaging as a wrongful eviction could be.
