From: "Dave Coull" <coull2-AT-btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: "Squatters Rights? 
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 21:28:43 +0100




Carp asked


> Do squatters really have a good claim 
> to where they build their homes?
> I think the answer is "Yes," as to say "No" seems to acquiesce 
> to property.  How'msoever, what does this do to ancestral claims?  
> And are americans--descendants of and since the european contact 
> at least--squatters?  


My part-native-American step-daughter thinks you are all squatters.
She also thinks you ought to pay her rent. Well, maybe not  _you_, 
Carp, because you owe rent to a different lot of Indians in Indiana ; 
but Scott owes her rent, because she claims her Yurok tribe has 
prior claim to California. However, my part-native-American 
step-daughter is, as you may have gathered, a grasping little capitalist. 


> Have we earned title to that which we occupy?


True anarchists recognise no such thing as legal title. 
Anarchists recognise use-rights. You have a right 
to use the land provided you do so wisely, serving
not just the interests of yourself and your family,
but, more generally, the interests of humanity 
and the environment. If you do this, then your
fellow anarchists will smile upon you continuing
to do so. If you don't, then you can't rely 
on a piece of legal paper to retain possession. 


> This might be a good one for Dave as he seems a bit daft 
> on the ways it used to be in Scottie Old Bonland, erm, 
> Bonnie Old Scotland.


Complete nonsense, Carp. I challenge you to produce anything 
I have ever written, on this or any other list, which backs
up your ridiculous claim that I hanker after the ways it used 
to be in Bonnie Scotland. 

 
> Dave?  
> How do ancestral claims fit into the Big Scheme of Residency?


My view on residency is that there should be no borders,
no restrictions on migration, and people should reside
wherever they want.


Dave Coull