Well, reasonable temporary absence don't necessarily need any kind of log. Anyway, if there were a case of illegal invasion on you property it could be easily challenged in an arbitration court if you show that your absence wasn't permanent
Discussion
'Reasonable' is subjective, that's problem nr. 1
If someone else's subjective decision can bring you to court, you need to protect yourself with a log that you was home. Everyone in society would need to do this. That's problem 2.
It's even worse that someone else need to prove whether you was in your own home or not. How would a society like that look like? This is what I mean with incentives, its just terrible.
'Reasonable' is subjective, that's problem nr. 1
If someone else's subjective decision can bring you to court, you need to protect yourself with a log that you was home. Everyone in society would need to do this. That's problem 2.
It's even worse that someone else need to prove whether you was in your own home or not. How would a society like that look like? This is what I mean with incentives, its just terrible.
'Reasonable' is subjective, that's problem nr. 1
If someone else's subjective decision can bring you to court, you need to protect yourself with a log that you was home. Everyone in society would need to do this. That's problem 2.
It's even worse that someone else need to prove whether you was in your own home or not. How would a society like that look like? This is what I mean with incentives, its just terrible.
Protecting the privacy of your own home literally becomes a threat to the ownership of your home.
The more privacy you have, the harder it is to defend yourself in court to remain owner of your home if others want to take it.
This is going to be such an inhumane mess. Spying, lying and cheating will be rewarded and if you don't want to be victimised, you'll need to give up your privacy.
People are rational enough to understand that for everything you own there is an abandonment criteria, it's not just simply: "no one is present on that house right now, therefore I can squatt there!".
Community mutually-agreed rules and arbitration courts will set these principles based on freedom of association
In an anarchist property system based on occupancy and use, there would be an **abandonment criterion** to handle conflicts between squatters and property owners, but it operates differently from state law.
**How it works to prevent conflicts:**
- **Abandonment defined by active, continuous use or intent to use:** Property rights are valid as long as the owner actively uses or occupies the property or demonstrates a clear intention to return and maintain it (such as a vacation home). Temporary absences are allowed without losing ownership.
- **Reasonable grace period:** A “grace period” is recognized during which absence does not count as abandonment. This time frame and standards for what counts as abandonment are usually determined by community consensus or local custom.
- **Clear distinction between temporary absence and true abandonment:** If the owner permanently neglects the property or leaves it unused without intent to return, it can be considered abandoned. At that point, someone else may claim it by actual occupation and use.
- **Community norms and mutual enforcement:** Local communities or networks develop informal or formal rules to adjudicate disputes on abandonment and occupation claims, reducing outright conflict by having agreed standards.
- **Use-based “squatter’s rights”:** Rather than relying on state eviction laws, the legitimacy of occupancy depends on demonstrating use and non-abandoned status, which may empower occupants who actively use the property and discourage speculative or absentee ownership.
This system centers on **socially agreed definitions of abandonment and use, not fixed legal codes enforced by a state**, allowing property claims to be dynamic and based on practical realities rather than solely on title documents. It aims to reduce conflict by clarifying when a property is truly abandoned and by emphasizing actual usage over absentee ownership, consistent with agorist and occupancy-based property principles.
This approach resembles some common-law principles of adverse possession but is implemented through community consensus and respect for voluntary association, aligning with anarchist ideals of non-coercion and mutual recognition.
[1][7][4]
Citations:
[1] Are We All Mutualists? | The Anarchist Library https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-are-we-all-mutualists
[2] Anarchist Squatting and Land Use in the West https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anders-corr-anarchist-squatting-and-land-use-in-the-west
[3] Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
[4] What would housing look like in an anarchist society? - Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/1fcaz0/what_would_housing_look_like_in_an_anarchist/
[5] Anarchism and capitalism - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_capitalism
[6] How does property become anarchist? - The Libertarian Labyrinth https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/featured-articles/how-does-property-become-anarchist/
[7] In Defense - Such As It Is - of Usufructory Land Ownership https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/in-defense-such-as-it-is-of-usufructory-land-ownership/
[8] Proudhon's basic ideas http://www.anarchy.no/proudhon.html
[9] Section B - Why do anarchists oppose the current system? https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionB.html
How could the common-law adverse possession principle be applied in the anarchist society based on occupancy and use property?
Common-law adverse possession principles could be adapted to an anarchist society based on occupancy and use property norms as a social mechanism to resolve property disputes and handle true abandonment. Here’s how it might work:
- **Use as basis of ownership:** Just like adverse possession requires continuous, open, actual, exclusive, and non-permissive possession of land for a defined period, an anarchist society would recognize ownership primarily through demonstrable use and occupation rather than mere titles.
- **Community-determined time frames:** Instead of fixed statutory periods, communities or voluntary associations would establish reasonable periods for continuous occupation needed to claim ownership if the original occupant abandons property.
- **Open and notorious possession:** Occupiers must visibly use the property, so the original owner or community is aware that usage has shifted, preventing secret or stealthy claims.
- **Hostile (non-permission) occupancy:** The new occupant’s claim is based on the absence of permission from the prior owner who has abandoned effective use. Temporary absences where the owner intends to return would not count as abandonment.
- **Exclusive and continuous use:** The claimant maintains sole occupancy and use throughout the required period, showing active engagement with the property.
- **Conflict resolution through social norms:** Instead of courts, disputes would be resolved by community mediation, agreements, or mutually accepted enforcement bodies aligned with anarchist principles of voluntarism and non-coercion.
- **Preventing conflict:** Clear community guidelines about what constitutes abandonment and acceptable absence would reduce ambiguity and help settle disputes peacefully.
This system parallels common-law adverse possession but emphasizes social consensus, voluntary enforcement, and ethical occupancy/use criteria rather than state enforcement or rigid legal codes. It effectively balances respect for legitimate ownership based on active use with the practical need to prevent prolonged abandonment and absentee landlordism.
In summary, the principle of adverse possession in an anarchist occupancy-use property system would serve as a flexible, community-enforced process ensuring property flows to those actively using it, minimizing conflicts between original owners and new occupiers while preserving the core agorist value that property must be justified by use.
Citations:
[1] adverse possession | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adverse_possession
[2] Adverse Possession: Legal Definition and Requirements https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/adverse-possession.asp
[3] [PDF] The Emotional Paradoxes of Adverse Possession https://pure.qub.ac.uk/files/8588065/The_Emotional_Paradoxes_of_Adverse_Possession.pdf
[4] [PDF] RECONCILING COMPETING SYSTEMS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS ... https://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/post/2018/08/lp-10-1-7.pdf
[5] FYI you can win legal title to land through "adverse possession" by ... https://www.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/lf6b3l/fyi_you_can_win_legal_title_to_land_through/
[6] Squatting - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting
[7] What is the difference between possession and property in ... https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/34207/what-is-the-difference-between-possession-and-property-in-anarchism
[8] In Defense — Such As It Is — of Usufructory Land Ownership https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-in-defense-such-as-it-is-of-usufructory-land-ownership
[9] [PDF] Possession as the Origin of Property https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstreams/acbdfe47-4597-43f2-b4cb-b79590c49213/download
The incentives go against the rationality of the people, like with statism.
If you live in a 300k house and you go travel for ten months while the abandonment criteria is settled at one year in this community, there is a massive incentive for others to collude (especially if they fdon't like you), witness that you are out more than a year and squat your house. If 6 people collude, its a 50k bounty each. This is just one scenario where it fails, there probably are many.
Yes you can protect yourself by keeping a provable log, but what kind of society is that where you have to keep a log where you are to not lose your house, which is arguably one of the worst things that can happen.
In short: To enforce these arbitrary rules, you need surveillance, otherwise the court can't make a proper decision.
Yup. The other part of this is the gross nature of all of that. Everything about that whole scenario is obviously disgusting. And it would happen.
for my taste it's way too socialist and would not be enforcable without a government, also, whereas common law property claims are able to be adjudicated with a decentralized system of jurisprudence services.
anyway, ultimately leaving property abandoned is not very sensible from an economics standpoint. you wouldn't even do it without the context of constantly inflating prices from banksters printing money.
what i mean is, it's a false argument in the first place, you don't need "help" to make your property produce wealth for you - you literally need to work it, or from it, or in it.
i mean, forget about the idiocy of focusing in only on residential and rural property for a moment as well - would anyone with a functioning brain buy a factory and then leave it idle? duh. so the agorist arguments are non-sequiturs. they put the cart before the horse. you own property for its services in facilitating production. the end.