Governor DeSantis Signs Law Against Squatters

[Revoltingest]

I will concede the Constitution grants, as a right, gun ownership under the conditions the individual is trained and belongs to a militia.

It doesn't state a requirement for training or belong to a militia.
It cites those things as a reason for ownership.

Analogy with the Preamble....

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The goals listed first aren't requirements for establishing the Constitution.
They're reasons for it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It doesn't state a requirement for training or belong to a militia.
It cites those things as a reason for ownership.

Analogy with the Preamble....

The goals listed first aren't requirements for establishing the Constitution.
They're reasons for it.

That's not the point of the thread. If there is any right to property in the Constitution that's it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A distinction without a difference.

It is a big difference. Entitling you to something as a right is not at all the same as protecting ownership of something. Robert Nozick (he wrote a popular philosophy book among Libertarian thinkers and philosophers) wrote that about the only thing a rightful and just government should do is protect property ownership and that it be justly acquired. The "just acquisition of property," however, is a notorious problem as the original owner is the proper legal owner in the case of invasion, theft, etc.
He doesn't even suggest the two are the same and clearly approached them as two different subjects.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not the point of the thread.

It was to help you understand.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is a big difference. Entitling you to something as a right is not at all the same as protecting ownership of something. Robert Nozick (he wrote a popular philosophy book among Libertarian thinkers and philosophers) wrote that about the only thing a rightful and just government should do is protect property ownership and that it be justly acquired. The "just acquisition of property," however, is a notorious problem as the original owner is the proper legal owner in the case of invasion, theft, etc.
He doesn't even suggest the two are the same and clearly approached them as two different subjects.

You're not making sense in your denial
of the existence of property rights.
A philosophy book is irrelevant to
US law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're not making sense in your denial
of the existence of property rights.
A philosophy book is irrelevant to
US law.

I didn't say there aren't property rights. There are rights regarding rights such as aforementioned amendments. But those rights do not entitle us to property as a right. Rather as a right it protects the property we do aquire.
I mentioned that book to strengthen my point that protecting property and entitling to property aren't the same thing. (and, yes, some philosophy books are applicable to US law).

 

[Kfox]

Perhaps what you call squatters. But what the law calls squatters, what historians call squatters is, well, …. complicated.

How is what I call squatters different than what you are calling squatters?

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, it's the origin of what we have know for many decades at least as "squatter's rights."
There is absolutely nothing new about it.

Can you provide evidence of what is going on today, happening in the past?

 

[Kfox]

I really doubt that's happening. I too would like evidence.

The second example, a woman went on vacation, when she came back; not only were squatters living inside her home, but they sold much of her furniture and possessions. Do you think this is fair?

'Fairly big problem': Squatters invade homes and refuse to leave. How is this legal?

Squatting is not a particularly difficult problem to solve. It simply requires police and prosecutors to enforce existing laws.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Kfox]

It has nothing to do with what’s fair. That’s what you aren’t getting.

No; what you aren't getting is that it has everything to do with what's fair. The topic of this thread is about Gov DeSantis and his anti-squatting legislation. I claim what he did was good and fair; other people (yourself included) you seem to object to that. And let's face it; the homeless and poor of today have it better than the homeless and poor has ever had it; so trying to make the argument that this is the result of poverty, fails. If they weren't doing it back in the day when things was much worse, there is no justification for doing it today.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can you provide evidence of what is going on today, happening in the past?

Squatters' Rights - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Squatters' rights defined and explained with examples. Squatters rights is a person's claim to own property he has occupied without the owner's permission.

legaldictionary.net

Definition of Squatters’ Rights
Noun
A concept granting claim to real property to an individual who has openly and continuously occupied it without legal permission for a prescribed number of years.
Origin 1850-1860 Americanism

What are Squatters’ Rights
The concept of squatters’ rights dates back to the Roman Empire, where someone who maintained possession of an item or property, without legal title, could become the lawful owner if the original owner did not show up to take possession within a certain period of time. Napoleonic law carried this practice through Europe and the Netherlands. In the Americas, colonists brought British law with them, including the concept of squatters’ rights. There was no way for the people venturing out into the land from the coast to know whether someone else had laid claim to a piece of land, assuming it was vacant when they arrived. It was commonplace for families to build a home, clear and till the land, and plant crops, working the land for years before someone, claiming to be the true owner of the land, arrived to take possession.

 

[Kfox]

Squatters' Rights - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Squatters' rights defined and explained with examples. Squatters rights is a person's claim to own property he has occupied without the owner's permission.

legaldictionary.net

Let me put it this way; I disagree with the idea of secretly breaking into someone else's home and claiming it as your own. This version of Squatters rights appears to be what Governor Santos law addresses and I agree with him for doing this. Do you agree also?

 

[PureX]

No; what you aren't getting is that it has everything to do with what's fair. The topic of this thread is about Gov DeSantis and his anti-squatting legislation. I claim what he did was good and fair; other people (yourself included) you seem to object to that. And let's face it; the homeless and poor of today have it better than the homeless and poor has ever had it; so trying to make the argument that this is the result of poverty, fails. If they weren't doing it back in the day when things was much worse, there is no justification for doing it today.

What’s happening in Alice Springs?​

A spate of recent violence has sparked calls for federal government intervention. Now, the Northern Territory government has declared an emergency, and a two-week curfew has been announced.​

Widespread alcohol abuse is generally seen as a leading cause, coupled with chronic social disadvantage and intergenerational trauma in Indigenous communities.​

Why retail theft is soaring: inflation, the economy – and opportunity​

Retailers large and small say they’re struggling to contain an escalation in store crimes — petty shoplifting to organized sprees of large-scale theft that clear entire shelves of products.​

​

“Millions of Americans can’t afford to fully buy their groceries or a full tank of gas, pay for public transportation, their home bills or pay their credit card debt,” he said.​

With thousands of Californians living in vehicles, lawsuit aims to stop cities from towing their homes​

Tens of thousands of Californians are living in their cars. Because losing those cars to impoundment can mean the loss of work and home, it can be a tipping point into a life on the streets.​

​

​

For many people, having their car towed for overdue parking tickets is a major annoyance and life disruption. But for homeless people, it’s a permanent loss, because most of them can’t afford to recover their cars.​

​

​

The costs escalate quickly. Offenders must reimburse the tow charge, roughly $500. They also need to pay off their original tickets and the accrued fines on those tickets, which can be $1,000 or more. On top of all of that, it usually costs $71 for every day the car is stored at the tow yard.​

​

​

In Kayode’s case, more than five months after his car was impounded, it would cost him more than $21,000 to get his car back.​

​

The greed-fest is coming to a head. Of course the haves will want more and tougher laws. That's how they became the haves in the first place. And they'll send in their hired goons to enforce them. But they're already outnumbered. By a lot. Which means that soon the goons will have to start shooting people for being poor and breaking the rich people's laws. And the rich people will applaud this, because that's what their greed has done to them. But the numbers of the poor and outraged will continue to rise. And eventually it's all going to explode.

DeSantis can make his laws and send in his goons, but it's only going to make things worse in the longrun. Because every time the rich pass a law to protect their wealth and privilege, they create more angry poor people that don't give a damn about their laws.

 

[Kfox]

What’s happening in Alice Springs?​

A spate of recent violence has sparked calls for federal government intervention. Now, the Northern Territory government has declared an emergency, and a two-week curfew has been announced.​

Widespread alcohol abuse is generally seen as a leading cause, coupled with chronic social disadvantage and intergenerational trauma in Indigenous communities.​

Why retail theft is soaring: inflation, the economy – and opportunity​

Retailers large and small say they’re struggling to contain an escalation in store crimes — petty shoplifting to organized sprees of large-scale theft that clear entire shelves of products.​

​

“Millions of Americans can’t afford to fully buy their groceries or a full tank of gas, pay for public transportation, their home bills or pay their credit card debt,” he said.​

With thousands of Californians living in vehicles, lawsuit aims to stop cities from towing their homes​

Tens of thousands of Californians are living in their cars. Because losing those cars to impoundment can mean the loss of work and home, it can be a tipping point into a life on the streets.​

​

​

For many people, having their car towed for overdue parking tickets is a major annoyance and life disruption. But for homeless people, it’s a permanent loss, because most of them can’t afford to recover their cars.​

​

​

The costs escalate quickly. Offenders must reimburse the tow charge, roughly $500. They also need to pay off their original tickets and the accrued fines on those tickets, which can be $1,000 or more. On top of all of that, it usually costs $71 for every day the car is stored at the tow yard.​

​

​

In Kayode’s case, more than five months after his car was impounded, it would cost him more than $21,000 to get his car back.​

​

The greed-fest is coming to a head. Of course the haves will want more and tougher laws. That's how they became the haves in the first place. And they'll send in their hired goons to enforce them. But they're already outnumbered. By a lot. Which means that soon the goons will have to start shooting people for being poor and breaking the rich people's laws. And the rich people will applaud this, because that's what their greed has done to them. But the numbers of the poor and outraged will continue to rise. And eventually it's all going to explode.

DeSantis can make his laws and send in his goons, but it's only going to make things worse in the longrun. Because every time the rich pass a law to protect their wealth and privilege, they create more angry poor people that don't give a damn about their laws.

So is it your view that I should be able to break into your house, and claim it as my own? What else should this apply to? How about cars? If you aren't driving your car, should I be allowed to break into your car and keep it as my own?

 

[PureX]

So is it your view that I should be able to break into your house, and claim it as my own? What else should this apply to? How about cars? If you aren't driving your car, should I be allowed to break into your car and keep it as my own?

You just continue to refuse to see the big picture.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

This is probably the only partially sane, sensible thing that has ever come out of that fool's mouth. It'll probably be the last.

 

[Kfox]

You just continue to refuse to see the big picture.

There are lots of big pictures; I'm not talking about that, I'm just saying nobody should be able to break into your house and claim it as your own. That's all I'm saying.

 

[PureX]

There are lots of big pictures; I'm not talking about that, I'm asking a simple question; do you agree with the idea a person should be allowed to break into someones home and claim it as their own? Yes, or no.

It makes no difference at all what I think. OR what you think. Or even what DiSantis thinks. This is what you aren't understanding. You're focused on this little tidbit of imagined righteousness so you can ignore the wholly grotesque economic abuse that's causing this and a whole range of other problems.

 

[Kfox]

This is probably the only partially sane, sensible thing that has ever come out of that fool's mouth. It'll probably be the last.

Who and what are you talking about?

 

[Kfox]

It makes no difference at all what I think.

To ME it matters, thats why I'm asking

You're focused on this little tidbit of imagined righteousness so you can ignore the wholly grotesque economic abuse that's causing this and a whole range of other problems.

I'm ignoring nothing. You keep bring up a bunch of stuff that I already know about; probably more aware of it than you. I know there are poor, I know there are people struggling, I know about hardships; much of that stuff I've lived through myself! So I don't need you telling me about any of that stuff; I am well aware of all of that. But just because I know of this stuff does not mean I am not allowed to ask other questions. Are you gonna answer my question? Or are you gonna continue to deflect by pointing out a bunch of stuff I already know about.