Skip to comments.The libertarian case for ‘occupying’ foreclosed homes
Posted on 12/21/2011 5:14:27 PM PST by presidio9
Do you support the Occupy protests? people often ask me. As a libertarian, my answer to that question is long, complex and inconclusive. Im critical of a lot of the Occupiers economic demands, but Im very proud of how strong the decentralized structure of this movement has become, even if only as a populist showing-of-teeth.
Perhaps Wes Messamore best described the difference between libertarianism and OWS with a Lord of the Rings metaphor. Messamore explains that the left wants to use the power of the state (the ring) to rein in and defeat the corporations (Sauron). Libertarians, however, seek to remove the source of Saurons power. They seek to destroy the privilege granted by governments to corporations, they seek to destroy the One Ring.
So rather than supporting or rejecting the entire movement, I prefer to support or reject specific actions the Occupiers take.
As police action excuse me, aggression continues to elevate in response to public encampments, many protesters are leaving Wall Street and, instead, have begun to occupy the very homes upon which Wall Street hopes to foreclose. These attempts to get rid of the protesters may very well strengthen the movements overall cause. I cant support the initiation of force
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
If property is not yours, don't take it.
Even if the property is sitting vacant.
How hard was that?
Otherwise, we have no rule of law at all. That would be anarchy, not libertarianism. Different set of rules.
at what point would an actual libertarian be in favor of squatting / stealing property??
it goes counter to the whole concept
The occupiers can’t be said to benefit all taxpayers in their occupying the vacant homes.
I agree with everyone else here, its not your property: don’t steal it.
As a cap-L Libertarian, my response is:
Is this a Govt.(policy)-induced crisis? YES.
Does that mean you have the right to seize property with that cause-&-effect political situation fully in mind? NO.
So, if the writter leaves his car outside I can take it for my own.
The protesters aren’t, in the main, “taxpayers”. So much for that so called line of reasoning.
There is no libertarian case for taking something that doesn’t belong to you, to include an innocent life.
“The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production which has flourished alongside and under it. The centralisation of the means of production and the socialization of labor reach a point at which they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”
This passage can be regarded as the final conclusion of Marxs entire theory. There is little doubt that these words fired the imagination of Lenin and his followers. The new rulers of Russia faced a huge task of transforming the relations of ownership and of organizing and managing production in a new way. They were determined to overhaul the countrys life along socialist lines as quickly as possible and to institute a centrally planned economy. They wanted the state to control all economic activity: to define priorities, allocate resources, and determine prices and wages. In other words, from the beginning, the Soviet economy was conceived as a command economy, that is, one based on instructions issued from above and not on the law of supply and demand.
Perhaps, but according to Ron Paul it is unconstitutional to tell people they can't help teenagers cross state lines so they can take those lives themselves.
Ron Paul has a 56% rating from the National Right to Life Council. He is by far the least pro-life of any of the Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney.
There is no “case” for occupying property that does not belong to the occupier. It’s called trespass. Once those who have property rights (e.g., banks ) decline to exercise those rights and prosecute trespassers as they pertain to properties in foreclosure, they will forfeit them or lose them entirely. Banks and other big businesses have for many years played to the public relations fear that prosecuting anyone for infringing on stockholders’ rights was not worth the projected loss of public esteem and goodwill and risk of being publicly excoriated by the media, all supposedly “bad” for business. So big business doesn’t prosecute instead they drop charges or settle cases out of court. That is the way the law works and it is one of the nasty little secrets the communist lawyers don’t tell you about. Once the concept of private property rights is lost through constant forfeiture and failure to enforce those rights, the entire underlying foundation for individual freedom goes with it. The two are inextricably intertwined. We are at a dangerous crossroads when private property rights are looked upon as decadent, odd, unfair or otherwise immoral by the average person in the street as well as by big business.
Naaaah. This guy is a poser. There is no “libertarian argument” for stealing property. Antithetical to the entire philosophy.
“Another excellent example of what passes for reasoned argument in the sophomoric minds of people who believe in the libertarian utopian model.”
No. It’s just an excellent example of someone posing as a libertarian for the sake of causing them disrepute. No more valid than someone writing an article entitled “the conservative case for letting children starve.”
If they resist, shoot 'em dead.
Oh, and this guy gives libertarians a bad name.
There isn’t one.