Argh property rights debate

[BigLawMonies]

Hey BluffThis thanks for keeping the discussion alive. ou bring up good questions and I thought a lot about my answers.

[Quote] I) Are there any other qualifications/justifications for taking adverse possession other than abandonment? [\Unquote]

The only qualifications are the 5 necessary and sufficient conditions I listed my original post on adverse possession.

As to additional justifications, there are many, but most of them are the classic pro-property justifications you have heard before I suspect.

Some unique justifications include the interest in repose, or quiet enjoyment without people trying to take your [censored] all the time. That is, we want and expect people to grow roots and invest in their land. We build houses, plow fields, build roads, etc. Adverse possession protects these people from those with stale claims or “owners” that have sat on their rights and now wish to disturb and enrich themselves at the expense of the new users/possessors.

Imagine you bought property from some guy and built a house on it. You raised a family there, built fences, kept the place up, and have been there for a long time. Now what if it turns out that the guy who sold you the land was a con man and never owned it, and 30 years later some old dude comes by and says “hey wait I own the land GTFO I’m going to live here in your house now.” Adverse possession I think is a good balance on the level of security.

I can try to flesh these out even more but perhaps it would be better if I referred you to law review articles? We can debate this if you like.

[Quote] II) Can you please define abandonment? [\Unquote]

Abandonment is the failure to assert one’s ownership rights against a squatter or other invader of the property within a reasonable time.

If I move into your vacation home and claim it as my own, if you protest to me, eject me, or seek a legal remedy if available (courts/ the sheriff), then you have not abandoned your property.

But after a reasonable time has expired, you have sat on your rights and abandoned your ownership of the property, and can no longer claim the right to eject me and recover your property.

[Quote] III) Is there a limit on how much such "abandoned" property one may adversely possess *and* retain? [\Unquote]

Theoretically, no

In reality, certainly yes due to the 5 conditions I mentioned previously. You can only ACTUALLY possess and use a relatively small piece of property exclusively to others’ use AND continuously for a reasonable period. I mean even a rural farmer can only plow so many acres…

Nothing prevents me from selling my new ownership interest once I have acquired the property, however. Imagine a row of houses without owners. I move into one, adversely possess it for a reasonable time, then sell it, then move on to the next house.

[Quote] IV) What is the basis for determining the time period of either abandonment or adverse possession? [\Unquote]

The time period on both abandonment and adverse possession begins with the adverse possession. So for instance I own wilderness land and have not been there for 15 years. But you move in on my land in year 15. The previous 15 years do not count, only years starting after your adverse possession attempt count. So year 20 of me never going to the property is only year 5 of abandonment/adverse possession period.

I have been relying heavily on the idea of a “reasonable” time and I guess I have to be more precise. I am thinking of a short time for objects, like fruit trees, baskets, whatever goods you can take with you. I am thinking of a much longer time for land, like multiple years. In the U.S. we have a range between 5-30 years for land depending on your state but I think in practice we have to fix a point that may or may not be a little arbitrary…like we do for voting, or driving, or whatever. The time period has to be long enough for owners or potential owners to assert their ownership, but short enough that owners cannot sit on their rights indefinitely. It is a balance between protecting the owner’s security and the new possessor’s developed interest in the property.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The post I replied to (from goodsamaritan IIRC) suggested that rights didn't matter, he had $100, no longer has it, and wants it back.

If getting it back is the important thing, and rights are unimportant, then he shouldn't have any problem getting it back in the easiest way possible. Dollars are fungible, and there's no rational reason to prefer one $100 bill over another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already debunked this false dichotomy and yet you just keep repeating it.

He may want the $100 back because he wants to live in society where people don't take $100 from each other by force. Not because there is some "natural right" to that $100, but merely because he knows such a society leads to more prosperous and safe existences for most people. Letting people go around taking $100 with no consequences will not lead to this type of society. Nor will taking $100 bills from sleeping old ladies to make up for the $100 taken from you lead to such society.

It is mind boggling that for someone who pops off so much about "consistency" can't see the consistency in such action. When I first started posting here, I thought you were relatively intelligent but the more you post the more you disprove my assertion. Is this argument really so deep that you still fail to grasp it or are you intentionally being obtuse because you don't like that it challenges your axiom regarding property? ... An axiom which you often claim you don't purport but your posts show otherwise.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
He may want the $100 back because he wants to live in society where people don't take $100 from each other by force. Not because there is some "natural right" to that $100, but merely because he knows such a society leads to more prosperous and safe existences for most people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we have to be a little more clear on what "wants" means in this context. I "want" no one to smoke cigarettes because I think that would make sociey "better" overall because I think they are filthy and disgusting. I also "want" no one to shoot me. There are two different kinds of "wants":

1) You want people to act a certain way but won't act to stop them if they disagree
2) You want people to act a certain way but will act to stop them if they disagree

The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[ QUOTE ]
It is mind boggling that for someone who pops off so much about "consistency" can't see the consistency in such action. When I first started posting here, I thought you were relatively intelligent but the more you post the more you disprove my assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal attacks are useless and undermine your position.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?

[ QUOTE ]
Personal attacks are useless and undermine your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. But again, they are just subjective value judgments in action.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The post I replied to (from goodsamaritan IIRC) suggested that rights didn't matter, he had $100, no longer has it, and wants it back.

If getting it back is the important thing, and rights are unimportant, then he shouldn't have any problem getting it back in the easiest way possible. Dollars are fungible, and there's no rational reason to prefer one $100 bill over another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already debunked this false dichotomy and yet you just keep repeating it.

He may want the $100 back because he wants to live in society where people don't take $100 from each other by force.

[/ QUOTE ]

YES! I already agreed with it. If that's the case then his justification "I try to get it back because I want it back" is incomplete. That was the point I was making. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[ QUOTE ]
Not because there is some "natural right" to that $100, but merely because he knows such a society leads to more prosperous and safe existences for most people. Letting people go around taking $100 with no consequences will not lead to this type of society. Nor will taking $100 bills from sleeping old ladies to make up for the $100 taken from you lead to such society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
It is mind boggling that for someone who pops off so much about "consistency" can't see the consistency in such action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. In fact, my entire point hinged upon that exact analysis: even if you don't believe in property as a natural right you probably recognize its value as some sort of social-norm-derrived right. Either way, the claims of the "property is theft" crowd are beaten down.

[ QUOTE ]
When I first started posting here, I thought you were relatively intelligent but the more you post the more you disprove my assertion. Is this argument really so deep that you still fail to grasp it or are you intentionally being obtuse because you don't like that it challenges your axiom regarding property? ... An axiom which you often claim you don't purport but your posts show otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this argument isn't deep at all. You've just got something stuck in your head that you can't shake which is making you misinterpret my posts. I'm not quite sure what that is.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do you prefer to use force here?

You could also use force to stop your neighbor from mowing his yard. Why didn't you use that as an example?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this assertion of yours at all. Why, in your "personal preferences" regarding the extent of the use of force, would you choose to stop the child from being abused? Because you just "really don't like" child abuse?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do you prefer to use force here?

You could also use force to stop your neighbor from mowing his yard. Why didn't you use that as an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to use force here because I value a child's well being more than a blade of grass's well being. What's the problem?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this assertion of yours at all. Why, in your "personal preferences" regarding the extent of the use of force, would you choose to stop the child from being abused? Because you just "really don't like" child abuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do you prefer to use force here?

You could also use force to stop your neighbor from mowing his yard. Why didn't you use that as an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not getting the point of my question. What makes one of these a case where you're willing to use force and the other not one? I'm guessing (hoping) there is a principle underlying this decision making process and you're not just arbitrarily picking on a case-by-case basis as you would when (eg) selecting what type of cheese to put on your burger each day.