Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No Vacancies: Squatters Move In [View all]Orsino
(37,428 posts)116. With respect, this is corporatist/bankster spin.
As an alternative to homelessness, squatting is neither unreasonable nor execrable. Anyone in a similar situation might make a similar decision.
Where the law disagrees, the law is an ass.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
116 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So what? It's better they do that then remain homeless and exposed to the elements.
Zalatix
Apr 2012
#14
That could happen even if it's unoccupied. It could get burned down due to arson.
Zalatix
Apr 2012
#19
Who gets their pants sued off if a squatter comes to an unfortunate end in someone else's house.
cherokeeprogressive
Apr 2012
#23
not if they're rich, not for quite some time. there was a story about all the special deals in nyc
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#66
I think the consensus among classical apologists is that pride is the worst sin.
LanternWaste
Apr 2012
#89
"Sin" is now worshipped! The "sins" of greed, fraud, corruption, selfishness, covetousness,
riderinthestorm
Apr 2012
#92
That's kind of easy to do when you have a job. If you don't have a job, there's your problem. nt
Selatius
Apr 2012
#81
Is it "thievery" if you take something that someone has left abandoned on a sidewalk?
KamaAina
Apr 2012
#16
If even one was bad and they stole one fucking house from one fucking American that's too many!
lonestarnot
Apr 2012
#93
Yes my point is relevant. The first deed was that of the banksters for theft of homes.
lonestarnot
Apr 2012
#96
If the borrower defaults on the loan and the bank forecloses, that is not theft
badtoworse
Apr 2012
#98
"The only situation that would qualify as theft would be one where the bank foreclosed on a
lonestarnot
Apr 2012
#100
If we are no longer secure in our land/property holdings, don't you think as Americans, we are going
lonestarnot
Apr 2012
#105
So that is your justification for a squatter stealing someone else's property? The Indians?
badtoworse
Apr 2012
#106
So who gets to decide when it's OK to take someone's property and when it isn't?
badtoworse
Apr 2012
#36
I'm not sure who "it's up to"-but the banks are responsible for tricking too many people
Ken Burch
Apr 2012
#49
After reading your response, I am more thankful than ever for the 5th Amendment - nt.
badtoworse
Apr 2012
#53
You're just here as a Free Republic heckler...we've all picked up on that by now
Ken Burch
Apr 2012
#58
Why? Because once respect for private property disappears, we're on a very slippery slope.
badtoworse
Apr 2012
#52
As a country, we have existed for well over 200 years with strong property rights
badtoworse
Apr 2012
#62
how can we accuse Rove as leading us into a criminal war if we do 70mph on the highway...?
LanternWaste
Apr 2012
#88
it does if the occupier heats it and does basic repairs. an unoccupied house degrades faster than
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#67
But, some millionaire might lose some of their boarded up property. Chaos!
The Midway Rebel
Apr 2012
#104
If I lived in a neighborhood that had several empty houses, I would welcome squatters
nadine_mn
Apr 2012
#109