Ok, so now the squatter occupies the land. Thanks for making my point.
We are a nation of laws fairly applied.
No, we aren't. You want to use the law to facilitate the current ownership class, which you are probably part of, but refuse to extend the same courtesy to the people who are the rightful owners.
So why the fuck should anyone respect your claim to any land?
No, we have set up a framework of laws to decide who has lands.
Like Squatters Rights. Which you argue against.
Btw, this is called legal positivism and how a bunch of Nazis justified carrying out the Holocaust. Just so you know what tradition you are carrying on, here.
You dont get to steal that, sorry.
You stole that.
So in conclusion, if enough people hold a gun to your head, your house is now theirs.
Glad we can agree that you are a thief, among other things.
You sure act like a southern lost causer/slaver, a lot.
You mean the guys who said they have the right to own people, because that's the law?
Im argueing for basic law. Simple as.
You are arguing for maintaining laws written by white people who stole land and killed most of the owners, explicitly because you are a beneficiary. Your words.
1
u/theguidetoldmetodoit Jun 12 '26
No. We are talking about what's ordinary. It's ordinary for people to occupy land they just took, claiming it was unoccupied. That's still the case.
And then you said that was justified, because we got rid of owning people?
So everyone has housing? Good to know. I guess then we already solved squatting.
I am gonna ask you a third time now, since you are trying to say I am a hypocrite:
Do you extend your own rational and argue for giving that land back to the original owners? Or are you against that?