La_Dolce_Vita 750 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) Nobody is arguing about what the law IS. John Wright and yourself answered Requiem. Up until this point you have said my views are irrelevant on what these people should do because they are supposedly idealistic (even though REAL people squat and have reasons for doing so) yet from the post above you also think there is no relevance in debating about squatting because we don't live in a socialist system which I would like. You don't leave much room for any ideology other than your own. Yes, because they're applicable to the situation as it stands, not some imaginary situation in your head. Explain how? Why should your tenant be able to suddenly decide to adhere to socialism when the landlord can't? The tenant who decides not to pay rent is not becoming socialist. They have just escaped one aspect of their exploitation, i.e. they are no longer having their need for shelter exploited so that the landlord can use the tenant as a resource to make profit (and possibly a living). Edited May 23, 2009 by La_Dolce_Vita Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Voice of Reason 100 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Owning property is stealing, so squatters are not stealing anything and nor are shoplifters. No lunacy about that or holding those views. Is that why you don't get on with the police? Were you perhaps liberating a bar of Dairy Milk from your local Spar and they dared to disagreee with your philosophy as expressed above. If all property is theft then please answer the question raised by a few forum members - can we please help ourselves to your stuff ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
La_Dolce_Vita 750 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) Is that why you don't get on with the police? Were you perhaps liberating a bar of Dairy Milk from your local Spar and they dared to disagreee with your philosophy as expressed above. If all property is theft then please answer the question raised by a few forum members - can we please help ourselves to your stuff ? Never been arrested for shoplifting. Possessions and Property: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secB3.html Edited May 23, 2009 by La_Dolce_Vita Quote Link to post Share on other sites
slinkydevil 4,657 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Never been arrested for shoplifting. Not been caught yet? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slim 1,355 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 The tenant who decides not to pay rent is not becoming socialist. They have just escaped one aspect of their exploitation, i.e. they are no longer having their need for shelter exploited so that the landlord can use the tenant as a resource to make profit (and possibly a living). I'm not talking about ideology though ldv, I'm talking about the way our economy actually works. I'm not debating the merits of it, or what is right and wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VinnieK 1,434 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) The tenant who decides not to pay rent is not becoming socialist. They have just escaped one aspect of their exploitation, i.e. they are no longer having their need for shelter exploited so that the landlord can use the tenant as a resource to make profit (and possibly a living). LDV, this all seems massively simplistic. The tenant hasn't escaped anything, other than paying rent in the short term. Eventually the landlord will get rid of them, and the tenant will have to then labour under the burden of being seen as a high risk to future landlords. Hypothesising about political change is all very well, but acting as cheerleader for an act that causes both distress and inconvenience for someone, and ultimately has a good chance of damaging the long term prospects of the very person you're supporting is simply irresponsible. This is the problem I have with ideologues, and especially those at the fringes of the political spectrum - you're so enamoured with gestures and statements that the actual people involved and their suffering become an irrelevancy, to be glossed over or ignored in favour of some petty and fruitless act of subversion or the conforming to an ideal. Edited May 23, 2009 by VinnieK Quote Link to post Share on other sites
La_Dolce_Vita 750 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) I've already made this clear. In your claims to relevance you dismiss my views but not others, that is you running off your own politics. Edited May 23, 2009 by La_Dolce_Vita Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rallybug 0 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Owning property is stealing, so squatters are not stealing anything and nor are shoplifters. No lunacy about that or holding those views. LDV - could you please email me your home address so that I can go round and take my pick of the stuff that you aren't using at the moment (including any money you might have saved up)? Thanks in advance. Don't worry about the rest of the stuff, just pick up his computers, router, modem etc..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hboy 1,996 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Owning property is stealing, so squatters are not stealing anything and nor are shoplifters. No lunacy about that or holding those views. LDV - could you please email me your home address so that I can go round and take my pick of the stuff that you aren't using at the moment (including any money you might have saved up)? Thanks in advance. Don't worry about the rest of the stuff, just pick up his computers, router, modem etc..... and while your there smash every telephone socket so he can't plug any new ones in either! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
La_Dolce_Vita 750 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) I don't dispute what you say about cheerleading for the mere sake of there being an act of subversion and simply for that purpose. It wouldn't be just fruitless but actually quite pointless. And I think you are quite right, it is irresponsible to argue for it to be done if that person does not consider the consequences that will come from it. My 'cheerleading' has, however, come in the form of saying that if you can you should, i.e. if you can benefit from it. I've not offered unqualified support for it. Given that the poster has asked for legal perspectives and has been given information by Slim he can make a more rational and sensible choice. Edited May 23, 2009 by La_Dolce_Vita Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Voice of Reason 100 Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 Is that why you don't get on with the police? Were you perhaps liberating a bar of Dairy Milk from your local Spar and they dared to disagreee with your philosophy as expressed above. If all property is theft then please answer the question raised by a few forum members - can we please help ourselves to your stuff ? Never been arrested for shoplifting. Possessions and Property: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secB3.html OK read that. Very good. Now when can we come and get your stuff? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.