Landlords only exist due government privileges. Without government squatting empty buildings / houses and invading terrains no longer will be illegal and therefore very common
Discussion
And also... If I catch squatters on any land that I do own and they don't leave when asked, they die. Squatting is immoral, not to say anything about illegal.
shoot over their head, and then "i'm now aiming at you, get the fuck out"
the right answer is "i need to get my stuff" and then you say "i'm coming in in 5 hours and if i see you, you lied to me as well as trespassed"
How much land do you currently own?
Squatting != trespass
0.
Squatting is occupying without the owner of the property knowing or giving permission. Yes, it is tresspassing.
Then why are they defined differently in law?
Why do I care about law? I'm talking about my rights as owner of my own property. Squatters are using the land without permission. That is morally wrong. Period. Use of any property without permission is the owner is wrong. End of story.
Squatters rights is basically how significant parts of the US was founded...
Does that make it right? No.
Yes, I'm questioning the legitimacy of the US, as should everyone question the roots of all government.
I was not referring to the government of the US.
Then please be more specific since I don't know what you mean.
After the Louisiana purchase was made, basically there were 3 ways people laid claim to land. One was outright purchase, which seems retarded considering it was basically unoccupied. The other was a homesteading and squatting. I also think some land was granted to certain vets.
The idea that land can only be acquirrd through purchase is slightly ridiculous, what happens when a new island is created in the ocean? Is it basically a "dibs" systems?
This is after the founding of the country. I'm asking about before. Showing up to a region and basically planting a flag and claiming "this is mine now" is rather ridiculous, isn't it? Still, the world we are currently living in has no real undiscovered or unaccounted for land at this point, no matter how spurious prior claims to such land may have been in the past. Given that, I do not recognize *squatter's rights."
As to your last query, I honestly don't know. That's rather farfetched, isn't it?
Thata not far-fetched, it happened in Iceland in 1960s and refutes your point that all land is currently accounted for. Also, who owns the land on the moon, mars, etc? If your philosophy doesnt work at simple edge cases in the present and future, then you have a lot more work to do to justify it in the past. For example, didn't the Indians juat show up from asia via alaska and do the exact thing you said was ridiculous?
I own land, acres and imo it is neutral morality to squat
The Natural Law is a subset of morality.
Enforcing absentee property rules in an anarchist society would be counterproductive because such rules rely on coercive enforcement mechanisms typically provided by a state—police, courts, and legal systems—which anarchism fundamentally opposes.
Here are some key explanations with examples:
- **Dependence on coercion**: Absentee ownership depends on the threat or use of force to exclude others from land that the owner does not actively use. In an anarchist society, there is no state to enforce these rights, so absentee landlords would have to rely on private coercion. This can lead to constant conflict, violence, and instability as owners try to maintain control by force rather than voluntary agreement or use.
- **Undermines social harmony and mutual respect**: Without state enforcement, absentee owners cannot easily exclude others who want to use the land productively or for shelter. Attempts to uphold absentee ownership can create disputes harmful to the cooperative and egalitarian social relations anarchism seeks. For example, enforcing absentee ownership could provoke resistance from squatters or neighbors who rely on that land, leading to cycles of retaliation and community breakdown.
- **Economic inefficiency and alienation**: Ownership detached from direct use discourages care or improvement of the land, since absentee landlords gain income (rent) without contributing labor. Without a state, owners cannot easily monetize such ownership by charging rent, removing the incentive to hold land unused. This leads to better land use if people occupy and improve land directly rather than holding it absentee.
- **Perpetuation of artificial scarcity**: Enforcing absentee ownership confines land access to a few, creating artificial scarcity. In an anarchist society focused on equity and freedom, this scarcity is harmful because it restricts many people's ability to meet basic needs. For example, if absentee owners exclude others from fertile land they don’t use, it deprives the community of potential food production or housing space.
In sum, **the enforcement of absentee property rules without a state is impractical and destabilizing**. It would likely lead to violent private conflicts, undermine communal cooperation, discourage productive use of land, and maintain unjust inequalities—all contrary to anarchist principles of voluntary association, mutual aid, and equality[1][2][3][4].
Citations:
[1] The Property Registration Problem in the Anarcho-Capitalist ... https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/black-cat-worker-collective-the-property-registration-problem-in-anarcho-capitalism
[2] Anarchist Squatting and Land Use in the West https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anders-corr-anarchist-squatting-and-land-use-in-the-west
[3] Use-and-Occupancy: Practical Issues - Center for a Stateless Society https://c4ss.org/content/41643
[4] Anarchism and capitalism - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_capitalism
[5] B.3 Why are anarchists against private property? https://anarchism.pageabode.com/book/b-3-why-are-anarchists-against-private-property/
[6] Would market anarchy see the collapse of absentee ownership? https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLibertarians/comments/1lg113o/would_market_anarchy_see_the_collapse_of_absentee/
[7] An Anarchist Case against Private Property - Mises Institute https://mises.org/friday-philosophy/anarchist-case-against-private-property
[8] [PDF] Land & Liberty - uu .diva https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1852324/FULLTEXT01.pdf
If it simply is a consequential thing that absentee ownership doesn't work in an anarchist society, then you need not argue that it violates the NAP.
No idiot, the legality depends on whether the owner still actually owns it and can demonstrate that he does. The feasibility of him maintaining control of it then depends on his defense, which can be purchased on the market. He may cease to care and he may relinquish the property. But he won't always.
If the NAP is followed and he still holds on to the property and you find this to be against your legal theory, then you are not really following the NAP. If that is true then you want anarchy, but only this special way, and you're willing to permit aggression to get it, unless your theory stipulates this as a preferred norm for voluntary association, and not an absolute.