Wait, how is the private agency going to "take him away" in a non-violent manner if the homeless person says he isn't leaving and wont take money to leave?

Never said he would be removed non-violent, just removed by whatever tactics they choose. You might not move if an old lady tells you to, but if two 6 foot body builders ask you, you may change your mind. Someone may call a private agency to remove them if for example the owner wanted no part in a potentially physical situation.

Wait, you just told us aggression against a non-violent person would be prosecuted and the government was bad for removing people by force.

Right. So if a squatter initiated violence against people trying to remove him, that is something worth handling in an appropriate manner. No one would initiate violence against a squatter without considering the possibility of prosecution.

A private agency would simply be people who are better trained to handle those situations than a normal person. No different than a mall subcontracting security because they know how to deter shoplifting more than property managers.

You certainly are twisting yourself in a knot here because you are completely on board with using the same tactics the government uses today, or worse, to remove squatters. Calling in DRO goons to do your dirty work doesn't really change that.

Also what happens when Im richer than you, show up on your property, claim its mine, and have my DRO come and remove you. Don't use aggression to resist, they'll shoot you for initiating violence. Don't tell me you are going to show me a deed or something like that, I have my own deed.

Thats fine. Because i never had a problem with what is generally accepted ways to handle squatters. My initial argument was precisely refuting any notion that in an absence of government that squatters are handled in a barbaric fashion.

Like five posts ago you complained about government aggression and like four posts ago you advocated removing squatters in a barbaric fashion.

You aren't very good at this advocating for AC thing.

Just for the record, I'm not talking about what would happen in the absence of Government. There's a big thread on that (spoiler: its almost certainly worse than what happens today).

But, my point is about beliefs on what is "ok" based on Proph's simple minded morality.

Where did i propose barbarism.

How do you feel about homelessness being subsidized by public ownership of property

Well the bolded part is undeniably true. So, if they were consistent with their alleged anti-governmentness, your Libertarian-types would be anti-private-property, because they shouldn't view it as legitimate, as it requires a government.

Of course, LTers claim they are pro-private-property while at the same time claiming they're anti-government. Talk about an obvious self-contradiction. What a buncha clowns.

Yeah, well let's say an old lady landlord is extorting rent out of 100 households. If she can afford to hire two six-foot goons to extort that rent, and still run a profit by paying for it out of the rent extorted... well then those 100 households could easily pay 200 six-foot goons to use the exact same tactics against that old lady landlord in her own house, and pay for it all, several times over in fact, simply by withholding that rent.

Absentee landlords, at all times and places, absolutely require the protection of a government.

Most libertarians believe the only moral and practical function of government is to enforce property rights, and somehow restrict the government from expanding beyond those roles. As long as a state never did anything beyond enforcing natural law it would be anarcho capitalist in nature.

looooooool

People refuse to pay rent when they have no money to their name. How can you extort someone who has nothing to give you.

Under what scenario does a landlord extort?

Uhh, are you sure you know what a landlord does?



If a buncha goons come up to your door, and say if you don't pay them, they'll violently throw you, your family, and all your possessions out into the street... you wouldn't call that extortion ??

That would be extortion, but why would a landlord do that.

Even 7-year-olds know that "might makes right" is a poor basis for a code of ethics.

My statement is just an observation of how humans behave.

Its almost like we should come up with a central body with a defined set of rules to help curb this behavior.

Well, before we get into psycho-analyzing why landlords, or others, might want to "do that"... can we first agree that here, in the real world, at this present time, landlords, for whatever their reasons might be, do if fact routinely "do that".

Amirite ??

Ok, eviction is not exactly some ghastly evil behavior. And under what circumstances would tenants have financial resources to resist eviction on a persistent basis?

It is refreshing to at least have an ACer who admits one of the problems with government is that is doesn't let rich people **** over poor people as much as he'd like.

Where did i post that?

O'Reilly?

So you consider a Mafia-style "protection" racket as relatively benign, and not at all some kinda ghastly evil behavior ??

Under every circumstance where the absentee landlord is running a profit.

If a landlord can fund these kinda violent tactics out of their rent income stream, then tenants could easily fund the same exact tactics deployed against that landlord, or their property management agents, many times over by simply withholding their rent.

That, and it takes almost zero resources to adopt a passive and defensive and non-violent position. OTOH, successfully completing an aggressive and offensive and violent operation takes significant resources. Observe the pix I posted above... note three cops in full riot gear -vs- one unarmed old lady.