You can just own what you active occupy and use. There's no reason to put some fences, a real estate's plate and tell "this piece of land is mine!". Regarding hostels or inns you're just attacking strawmen because they can't be squatted because there are constant people working inside it.
Further reading to more clarification:
[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/)
[Are Hotels Immoral?](https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/contrun/are-hotels-immoral/)
So if you aren't on your land 24/7/365, someone can come in and claim it by right of occupancy. Right. Totally logical.
Yes, I'm being absurdist, but that's the logical conclusion of that kind of thinking.
If I own land morally, I may make mututally voluntary contracts for the use of the land, as it is my right to do so. This can include renumeration for resources, time spent with my permission on the land, or really anything else agreed on in the contract.
fuckin agorists. they are red, as far as i'm concerned, when it comes to this subject.
they can try and occupy the edges of my ranch, and i will put bullets in their asses.
From individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker:
"It should be stated, however, that in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on **actual occupancy and use.**"
— Benjamin Tucker, *Instead of a Book*, p. 61
"the land monopoly. . . consists in the enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon **personal occupancy and cultivation**. . .the individual should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but **personal occupation and cultivation of land**."
— Benjamin Tucker, *The Anarchist Reader*, p. 150
"Ground rent exists only because the State stands by to collect it and to protect land titles rooted in force or fraud. Otherwise land would be free to all, and no one could control **more than he used**."
— Benjamin Tucker, quoted by James J. Martin, *Men Against the State*, p. 210
Tucker’s explanation of "property" as denoting possession:
"property" ... "as denoting the labourer's individual **possession of his product** or his share of the joint product of himself and others."
— Benjamin Tucker, *Instead of a Book*, p. 394
The important word is "AND"
occupation AND cultivation
So what if you have a house with a nice big garden where your family lives for 3 generations already and you decide to go travel the world for a year as a once in a lifetime experience? Who's going to decide and what will happen?
In an anarchist society based on occupancy and use property norms, temporary absences such as vacations or infrequent visits to a second home would generally not be considered abandonment of property. The core principle is that ownership depends on actual use and active occupation, but this principle is understood with reasonable flexibility around temporary non-use.
Such a society might address "abandonment periods" with practical community or customary rules. For example:
- **Reasonable Temporary Absence:** Owners are understood to retain property rights if they are temporarily absent but intend to return, keeping the property maintained or showing ongoing legitimate use (like seasonal homes).
- **Community Enforcement and Agreements:** The community or local users may have informal or formal agreements to respect temporary absences, distinguishing them clearly from true abandonment, which would imply relinquishing claims.
- **Use-Based Reclamation:** If a property is truly abandoned—left unused for a prolonged time without intent to return—others could claim it by occupancy and use, but short absences would normally not trigger loss of ownership.
- **Ongoing Care or Presence:** Leaving someone to care for the property or regular visits can uphold the ownership claim during absences.
This approach aligns with agorist principles opposing absentee ownership but recognizes practical life patterns by differentiating between temporary non-use and abandonment. **The focus remains on active engagement and use rather than strict continuous physical presence.**
Thus, vacation periods or seldom-used summer homes would not lose their property status as long as the owner maintains ongoing legitimate use or clear intent to reclaim. True abandonment would require neglect or clear abandonment of use, allowing others to occupy based on occupancy and use.
This flexible, occupancy-based property norm balances respect for property with preventing absentee landlordism and ensures property rights are grounded in active, demonstrable use rather than just legal titles or long-term absence.
No specific legal codes apply directly, but anarchist or agorist communities would likely develop norms or mutual enforcement mechanisms reflecting these principles. This bears similarity in spirit to some common-law "use it or lose it" principles but interpreted socially rather than through state law.
So you basically need a permit and you need to keep a log, just to leave your own home? How are you going to prove that you were home or how is the counterparty going to prove that you are not?
Don't you see that this is a much bigger threat to freedom than just having people own what they own?
And don't you think the community decisions can be corrupted, or interperted differently if the person isn't that popular or if there is jealousy involved? The incentives will push it this way.
This is exactly why I think anarchy needs capitalism (anarcho-capitalism). You need a system like capitalism to allign the incentives and makes people cooperate.
I just don't think a system based on 'I think this is fair' would work without a mechanism to enforce incentives like capitalism, because the incentives will turn against it. Don't forget that there is a lot of value involved, which is the driver of incentives.
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
'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.
Yupppp.
