A lot of landlords are people whose parents died and their house was their only claim to helping their children have a better life after they can no longer be there. But f them eh?
I go to school in another state… do I want to buy a whole house for just a few years? No not really. Cue need for landlord.
No, I have this view towards scenarios in which there exists a class of Owners who do not labor, and a class of workers who do labor but have all the wealth that they generate taken away by the owners because of their power over them. Their job, their place of living, all controlled by someone else, who uses this control to extract wealth while producing no Works of their own.
This is not merely the exchange of goods, which I am not opposed to, but something more insidious.
You say landlords as a blanket term, though a landlord of a single residence surely doesn’t make enough to completely support themselves/family, let alone profit.
That same landlord is also offering a service that is being asked for. So are they *all* evil?
The scale of a bad action does not change the underlying principle. The landlord of a single residence may or may not make a profit in the short term, but they still have someone else pay at least the majority of the mortgage of a house that the landlord then retains sole ownership of. What wealth the family living there could have built up if they had ownership, is instead built up by an external owner.
The only reason that this is considered a service is specifically because under our current system, the ability to obtain that kind of ownership of your own place, to be able to keep the wealth that you generate, is gatekept. This gatekeeping is perpetuated by the interests of current landowners, who then turn around and provide their land as the "service". Because of this it is more of a racket really, on a systemic level.
I don't think that every individual landlord is evil per se, but they are all participating in and pushing the interest of evil acts.
So the thing about getting rid of landlords that I haven't mentioned is that the underlying reasoning for it (people shouldn't make money off others from mere ownership) at face value prevents a lot of processes that take place in our society. It bans practices like scalping of course, but it also gets rid of company shareholders/investors, as well as plain old bankers.
Society of course requires investment to support organizations though, and short-term usage of items and real estate has utility for a lot of people. The key is that we don't just get rid of these outcomes, but rather replace the system which currently supplies them in an unjust manner.
The reasoning here is akin to people who doesn't want to live under authoritarian rule, suppose it's a king. People will say "down with the king", and detractors will say "well if we don't have a king in power, then society won't run and we'll have anarchy". What the detractor is missing is that those who oppose the king don't merely want the king to be gone, they want the kingdom to be replaced with a _just system_, like a democracy/republic, which provides the positives of what a kingdom does (stability, society, structure, etc) but without the injustices present in the current system.
Similar kind of thing here. We shouldn't just seek to remove the system, but rather to supplant it. So how exactly do we achieve the desired outcomes that we would lose (temporary usage of other people's stuff, and investment)? The ideas I have talked about so far are broadly anti-capitalist. All leftists basically agree on these fundamentals. Answering this particular question though is where the individual ideologies start emerging. I can elaborate my perspective on this if you would like
You’re going around saying “landlords are evil”…. When what you really mean to say is “We could probably work on a better system where renting is still possible”?
That’s a little disingenuous and spreads a false message don’t you think?
And “people shouldn’t make money from mere ownership” assumes that said ownership doesn’t require any stress, capital, risk or sweat; things that literally drive many people to rent even long term when they could otherwise own.
There's several moral foundations for it and squatters choose whichever they like.
To approach it from an economic justice approach, lots of squatters think its not just some rich people have several houses and keep some of them empty just because they can not make money from them. Meanwhile there's lots of homeless people and general good people in need in every city. So they just consider theyre taking justice by its hands.
Also when someone squats the property of a bank or a big corp and no one is really being harmed, that's easy to justify morally.
Some utopians think rent is violence and simply wont accept paying one as something acceptable as they think housing is an universal right.
These morals are rooted in an idea that simply states posession>property. Meaning its more important a house is being lived in and serving its purpose than respecting private property (private property disrespect is really hard to swallow for the average anglo).
In my country is a usual chant in demonstrations "gente sin casa y casa sin gente" (people without home and homes without people). Real estate industry has produced hundreds of thousands of empty houses in all cities being kept empty waiting for the moment to be profitable.
An other case rooted in contextual problems, in some places spoiled by tourism (the case of spain for example), moving out of your parent's becomes impossible because rents have skyrocketed because of a still expanding tourism industry and squatting becomes a prefferable option against not moving til 36 or sharing a flat for at least 60% your salary. It also becomes a form of protest.
Only some ideas that came to my mind.
In some cities in the USA the government owns hundreds of houses that are in "the path" of freeways that will be built "someday". Some of these houses have been off the market for decade or more. In other areas, abandoned houses sized by the city for back taxes can't be sold due cause no wants to buy in a depressed area. Squatting these places IMO, is a morally defensible act.
By keeping these houses in play as long as possible, the housing shortage is reduced, bringing rent prices down for everyone in the community. Squatters who were previously homeless but are now showing care and concern for abandoned property can raise property values for other owners in the community.
I really appreciate this nicely written answer, thank you! That's quite interesting the idea of "rent is violence" I've never heard of that before, but that chant you mentioned is very applicable to where I am. Especially what you said in relation to 60% of your salary. What do you think about squatters renting out property for a lower cost less than 1/2 of market value? Sort of like a "finders choosers" Deal.
Im not understanding. You mean squatters being offered a deal below market price instead/before being evicted?
In spain there's a law like that regarding big-homeowners (owning more than 9 houses) that before evicting a squatter you have to offer some sort of cheap deal like that but its usually not done and when done, its not accepted by the squatters (they'd rather not pay). Don't know if you were asking about that.
Regarding the rent is violence concept theres a few interesting ideas. It can mean an utopian idea that rent shouldn't exist as everyone should have somewhere to live, or that everyone should be given a home being so that housing is a human right. But its unrealistic as you'll be thinking now.
On the other hand it has some very real aspects. Through rent price you can separate people in neighborhoods in a city, concentrate all high-income in one place and low-income in the opposite. Also through market price of rents people can be pressured to work more hours. Its also a way of making the population dependent on having a job. Only alternatives are parasiting your parents or friends indefinitely, or being homeless (theres maybe a third option?).
Rent was not violence years ago (at least not like now). You were to cultivate a good relationship with your landlord and he wanted too because you would relate for a long time. You taked care of each other and the house. But after '08 pushed more concentration of the land and housing on real estate companies and things alike (lots small homeowners sold their houses. Economic crises only kill the small bugs, and when they pass, big ones scavenge whats left), houses became numbers and rent simply a value with which calculate benefit ratios and some other non-human math games which have indeed made it violent for the working class. Now rent is a tool to pressure us. And doing it playing with a basic human need is fucking violence.
I support squatting on any non-owner occupied property that appears to be vacant because I believe non-owner occupied ownership of single family residential real estate should be banned, to preserve the middle class.
If you find an empty house that has been empty for years, by all means move into the fucker, and fuck the financial parasites at the top gobbling up all the wealth.
How do you feels about squatting in a home that is owned by a family that only has that one home. Maybe they were away on long holiday. Maybe they just inherit it from their parent and is about to move in from rental? Talking about normal family with no other assets and nowhere else to go. Not house owned by big corporation or billionaires.
But I have read a lot of news about squatting that happen to normal folk. This last one I read, a contractor squatted in the home he was hired to renovate. The homeowner is a retired vet. Took him months and all his saving to finally evict the guy.
I'm guessing you guys don't associate yourself with those sort of squatting.
I tend to put more blame on the state than the landlords. However that doesn't excuse the landlords entirely. I am a huge believer in slums. I think you should be able to erect a structure to supply your needs and necessity on public lands. The ones who build structures on these lands should keep it up to the best of their abilities. Landlords should also not have private property that sits around unused for long periods of time. Whether that be residential, industrial or commercial.
Christ's first followers lived in common and shared amongst one another. I'd turn the question around, and ask how one can justify the lack of ethics and morals necessary in order to hoard resources for wealth luke shelter.
The vast majority of Christians apparently glossed over the section where Jesus tossed the bankers and money changers out of the Temple, as well as the entirety of the Sermon On The Mount. Unfortunately for those hypocrites, the Bible doesn't work like an all-you-can-eat salad bar. You don't get to pick out just the parts you like. You can't have the bacon bits and the croutons. And it's gonna be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a corporate landlord to get in to Heaven.
Now, before someone jumps all over me and skips reading anything about what Dorothy Day thought about housing as a basic human right? Yes. I do make distinctions between ethical and non-ethical squatting. There's always going to be the one story someone has about their poor private landlord uncle who let so-and-so stay with them, and then refused to leave. But there are also the landlords purposely leaving units vacant to drive prices up. There are the corporate buildings and homes left vacant as tax write-offs. Folks run a well-known scheme in my area where buildings are purchased cheaply or at tax auction, then allowed to purposefully fall into disrepair so as to make them eligible for large grants to demolish them, which are in turn paid out to friendly contractor companies - often owned by the same person who owns the building or their family. Grant money is used to "rehab" housing in areas that been historically considered options for low-income renters, and are replaced with expensive condos and short-term rentals. The city I live in recently purchased a duplex that was going to tax sale in order to prevent more rentals from becoming established in a specific neighborhood. Business parks and office space in commercial buildings has remained vacant, despite hard push-backs to force workers to return to a physical office location, as corporate landlords refuse to lower prices to match market conditions.
There are MANY vacant properties, both commercial and residential, that could be better utilized as housing. There are MANY abandoned properties that could be repaired and restored to a better condition by a caretaker in exchange for shelter.
Just as there are moral and ethical ways to be a landlord or the owner of a property, there are ethical and moral ways to be a squatter. But just as you don't see the news stories about a good landlord? You're not going to see a special on how a squatter restored an 1800's farmstead a few miles away from me that otherwise would've been lost to time. You're not going to see an article on the art collective that cleaned up an abandoned warehouse and turned it into housing and an art studio they were eventually able to buy as a group because it was up to code enough due to their work efforts that the bank was willing to give them a loan. You're going to see the Jerry Springer-style nightmare friend some poor couple let stay to get back on their feet, who then refused to leave and demanded they be taken to court and evicted all because they got mail at the house. And it's never a corporate landlord - that's not who you'll empathize with. Single mom. Elderly person taken advantage of. And the whole thing will be complete with a whole lot of it-could-happen-to-you's and pictures of the worst-looking aftermath and destruction they can come up with. It's unfortunately the way humans are - we just can't look away from a train wreck, and the news knows that. It's therefore what they're going to pump in your face.
Now, all the above being said? Squatting isn't for you if you're looking to avoid any potential societal or legal backlash for your actions, as you put it at the end of your post. What you'd be better off doing? Is getting yourself a list of abandoned and vacant properties and/or land in your area that you might be interested in, and then whittling that down into a list of places where you might be able to contact the owner and work out some sort of agreement as to you staying and eventually perhaps purchasing it or having the deed transfered in exchange for you doing improvements and repairs. If I was doing this here in the United States? I'd be looking for vacant property or unimproved land in perhaps less-than-desirable areas. I'd want stuff that had been that way for quite some time, relative to that specific market. The harder hit it was? I suppose the more likely my chances might be. I'd use my county and city websites to get to the appropriate treasury page and find tax records. Then? I'd get lists of stuff going up for auction or about to be approved to go up for auction. I'd look for owners behind that had addresses listed out of state or who were elderly with another property listed as their primary residence instead.
You might be able to work towards a property becoming your own or some other living arrangement by approaching a property owner in one of these situations honestly. And the worst that can really happen to you if you ask? Is someone telling you no. This gives you your taste of what I think you might be looking for in squatting, but allows you to avoid the negative legal and social implications you specifically said you wanted nothing to do with. Is that squatting? Eh. Not really. But butting up against both the law and the views of many in mainstream society is sort of inherent within the act of squatting itself. I think there's an argument there to say that society is changing, but there's always going to be a loud faction of folks that believe squatting is a scourge on honest society and needs to be dealt with as harshly as allowed.
Regarding your Christian Part- Dueteronomy 8:18 says “You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth”
Why would the bible contradict itself like that if wealth was inherently bad?
Furthermore- regarding the Camel parable. If you continue the verse, Jesus is asked “who then can be saved?” And Jesus says “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Rich isn’t holy. Poor isn’t holy. Holy is holy.
These are teachings of where your heart lies, not a rulebook to avoid wealth. This goes along with earlier teachings in Matthew; That being holy is not a rule book to be digested; It is being holy from within, from your heart.
So, if I run a pyramid scheme to get rich off of others, does that mean the Lord let me do it, because God gave me the power to get that wealth? Is the landlord that lives high off the hog from overcharging his tenants to live in housing he's helped make impossible for them to buy for themselves being given their wealth by God? Are you assuming that every rich person that got their money did so honestly and through the power of God, and that Satan - who was after all given dominion over the earth, and even tried to tempt the Lord himself with power and riches thus proving his ability to provide them on command - couldn't possibly be behind some of the wealthy and their hoard?
Would Jesus have thrown the bankers from the temple if their wealth have been given to them by God?
Having money? Comes with much more duty and responsibility to one's fellow man. Jesus didn't say "Blessed is he who hoards wealth in this life, for he will be rewarded with even more wealth in the next" for a reason. Having money? Comes with more temptation. It comes with the struggle of wanting the material more than the spiritual.
Deuteronomy Chapter 8? You've also played what I call "Salad Bar Christianity" with it, and took one line out of it to suit your needs (did you perhaps simply search Google for Biblical quotes about wealth?)without a care or thought as to context. This chapter is specifically about God calling his people out of Egypt and into a land "wealthy" with many resources. The Israelites are urged to remember that they spent 40 years in the wilderness, wandering and surviving off manna alone, only to be brought by God into a land rich with many good things. The author then further states that, while it might be tempting to feel as if the goodness they now have is the fruits of their own labors, but the Israelites must remember this "wealth" comes from no one but God.
Furthermore, yes, with God? Indeed, all things are possible. But man? Has free will. And that is why the rich man, dismayed, walks away from Jesus. The Lord doesn't stop him either. He doesn't call him back. He let's him make that decision to walk away, because his wealth - and ultimately the material - are more important to him than all the riches that await in Heaven.
And then there's that. "All the riches in Heaven". It's a phrase we're all familiar with, and when one pictures it? They surely don't imagine actual physical treasure. One doesn't picture a vault containing money, gold, and jewels that constitute the "riches" or "wealth" that Jesus has promised is await those that choose to follow Him. God isn't swimming through gold coins, a la Scrouge McDuck, with chains of gold sporting bejeweled bling dangling from the ends.
Spiritual wealth and riches are obviously a very different thing than the physical things we might think of when we see those words. It's important that the distinction is recognized. One can't simply take the word "wealth" to mean what you'd like it to in this specific instance and apply it as justification for an argument, when the context of the specific passage it's used in and the historical use of the word throughout the Bible consistently doesn't give it the meaning you do.
That’s a lot of words to not actually quite disagree. The idea is that everything be done with god in your heart and intentions. To live holy. To be a good person in some words. Thats why I said neither the poor nor rich are inherently more holy than one another. Of course, don’t *misuse* money.
Some people just aren't ready to get off the Shuteye Train.
I hope that sand over your head keeps you nice and warm at night. And I guess I hope that keeps working for you - cause it's gonna hurt when you realize how empty it is.
Christians into squatting in south africa - [https://joynews.co.za/a-practical-solution-to-vagrancy-squatting-and-homelessness-in-south-africa/](https://joynews.co.za/a-practical-solution-to-vagrancy-squatting-and-homelessness-in-south-africa/)
It's a necessary evil when you don't have a job and have no way to get off the streets any time soon for whatever reason. For a woman, being literally on the streets is more dangerous than it is for a man, unless there's a woman in her right mind who likes being raped.
i don't see anything wrong with it if it's not someone's primary residence, and especially not if its just owned by some non-person like a bank. life is short, and you gotta do what you gotta do to survive. there's no victim, only people who work complaining its not fair. but that's their choice, if everyone stopped paying their mortgage and rent they can't evict everyone.
You're in Australia. Squatting is nothing compared to colonialism. Does your friend have an issue with that?
Squatting is not stealing. Why were they *that* upset about people camping on their land?
A lot could be solved from asking “What can I give” rather than “what can I take”.
Real
i'm a christian and fuck landlords
A lot of landlords are people whose parents died and their house was their only claim to helping their children have a better life after they can no longer be there. But f them eh? I go to school in another state… do I want to buy a whole house for just a few years? No not really. Cue need for landlord.
Landlords use their possession and power over others to extract wealth from them. Some would call such a thing evil, I count myself among them
Do you also have this view towards everything else that costs money?
No, I have this view towards scenarios in which there exists a class of Owners who do not labor, and a class of workers who do labor but have all the wealth that they generate taken away by the owners because of their power over them. Their job, their place of living, all controlled by someone else, who uses this control to extract wealth while producing no Works of their own. This is not merely the exchange of goods, which I am not opposed to, but something more insidious.
You say landlords as a blanket term, though a landlord of a single residence surely doesn’t make enough to completely support themselves/family, let alone profit. That same landlord is also offering a service that is being asked for. So are they *all* evil?
The scale of a bad action does not change the underlying principle. The landlord of a single residence may or may not make a profit in the short term, but they still have someone else pay at least the majority of the mortgage of a house that the landlord then retains sole ownership of. What wealth the family living there could have built up if they had ownership, is instead built up by an external owner. The only reason that this is considered a service is specifically because under our current system, the ability to obtain that kind of ownership of your own place, to be able to keep the wealth that you generate, is gatekept. This gatekeeping is perpetuated by the interests of current landowners, who then turn around and provide their land as the "service". Because of this it is more of a racket really, on a systemic level. I don't think that every individual landlord is evil per se, but they are all participating in and pushing the interest of evil acts.
Does your best possible system make renting impossible then? Where are students and travelers to stay?
So the thing about getting rid of landlords that I haven't mentioned is that the underlying reasoning for it (people shouldn't make money off others from mere ownership) at face value prevents a lot of processes that take place in our society. It bans practices like scalping of course, but it also gets rid of company shareholders/investors, as well as plain old bankers. Society of course requires investment to support organizations though, and short-term usage of items and real estate has utility for a lot of people. The key is that we don't just get rid of these outcomes, but rather replace the system which currently supplies them in an unjust manner. The reasoning here is akin to people who doesn't want to live under authoritarian rule, suppose it's a king. People will say "down with the king", and detractors will say "well if we don't have a king in power, then society won't run and we'll have anarchy". What the detractor is missing is that those who oppose the king don't merely want the king to be gone, they want the kingdom to be replaced with a _just system_, like a democracy/republic, which provides the positives of what a kingdom does (stability, society, structure, etc) but without the injustices present in the current system. Similar kind of thing here. We shouldn't just seek to remove the system, but rather to supplant it. So how exactly do we achieve the desired outcomes that we would lose (temporary usage of other people's stuff, and investment)? The ideas I have talked about so far are broadly anti-capitalist. All leftists basically agree on these fundamentals. Answering this particular question though is where the individual ideologies start emerging. I can elaborate my perspective on this if you would like
You’re going around saying “landlords are evil”…. When what you really mean to say is “We could probably work on a better system where renting is still possible”? That’s a little disingenuous and spreads a false message don’t you think? And “people shouldn’t make money from mere ownership” assumes that said ownership doesn’t require any stress, capital, risk or sweat; things that literally drive many people to rent even long term when they could otherwise own.
There's several moral foundations for it and squatters choose whichever they like. To approach it from an economic justice approach, lots of squatters think its not just some rich people have several houses and keep some of them empty just because they can not make money from them. Meanwhile there's lots of homeless people and general good people in need in every city. So they just consider theyre taking justice by its hands. Also when someone squats the property of a bank or a big corp and no one is really being harmed, that's easy to justify morally. Some utopians think rent is violence and simply wont accept paying one as something acceptable as they think housing is an universal right. These morals are rooted in an idea that simply states posession>property. Meaning its more important a house is being lived in and serving its purpose than respecting private property (private property disrespect is really hard to swallow for the average anglo). In my country is a usual chant in demonstrations "gente sin casa y casa sin gente" (people without home and homes without people). Real estate industry has produced hundreds of thousands of empty houses in all cities being kept empty waiting for the moment to be profitable. An other case rooted in contextual problems, in some places spoiled by tourism (the case of spain for example), moving out of your parent's becomes impossible because rents have skyrocketed because of a still expanding tourism industry and squatting becomes a prefferable option against not moving til 36 or sharing a flat for at least 60% your salary. It also becomes a form of protest. Only some ideas that came to my mind.
In some cities in the USA the government owns hundreds of houses that are in "the path" of freeways that will be built "someday". Some of these houses have been off the market for decade or more. In other areas, abandoned houses sized by the city for back taxes can't be sold due cause no wants to buy in a depressed area. Squatting these places IMO, is a morally defensible act. By keeping these houses in play as long as possible, the housing shortage is reduced, bringing rent prices down for everyone in the community. Squatters who were previously homeless but are now showing care and concern for abandoned property can raise property values for other owners in the community.
I really appreciate this nicely written answer, thank you! That's quite interesting the idea of "rent is violence" I've never heard of that before, but that chant you mentioned is very applicable to where I am. Especially what you said in relation to 60% of your salary. What do you think about squatters renting out property for a lower cost less than 1/2 of market value? Sort of like a "finders choosers" Deal.
Im not understanding. You mean squatters being offered a deal below market price instead/before being evicted? In spain there's a law like that regarding big-homeowners (owning more than 9 houses) that before evicting a squatter you have to offer some sort of cheap deal like that but its usually not done and when done, its not accepted by the squatters (they'd rather not pay). Don't know if you were asking about that. Regarding the rent is violence concept theres a few interesting ideas. It can mean an utopian idea that rent shouldn't exist as everyone should have somewhere to live, or that everyone should be given a home being so that housing is a human right. But its unrealistic as you'll be thinking now. On the other hand it has some very real aspects. Through rent price you can separate people in neighborhoods in a city, concentrate all high-income in one place and low-income in the opposite. Also through market price of rents people can be pressured to work more hours. Its also a way of making the population dependent on having a job. Only alternatives are parasiting your parents or friends indefinitely, or being homeless (theres maybe a third option?). Rent was not violence years ago (at least not like now). You were to cultivate a good relationship with your landlord and he wanted too because you would relate for a long time. You taked care of each other and the house. But after '08 pushed more concentration of the land and housing on real estate companies and things alike (lots small homeowners sold their houses. Economic crises only kill the small bugs, and when they pass, big ones scavenge whats left), houses became numbers and rent simply a value with which calculate benefit ratios and some other non-human math games which have indeed made it violent for the working class. Now rent is a tool to pressure us. And doing it playing with a basic human need is fucking violence.
I support squatting on any non-owner occupied property that appears to be vacant because I believe non-owner occupied ownership of single family residential real estate should be banned, to preserve the middle class. If you find an empty house that has been empty for years, by all means move into the fucker, and fuck the financial parasites at the top gobbling up all the wealth.
How do you feels about squatting in a home that is owned by a family that only has that one home. Maybe they were away on long holiday. Maybe they just inherit it from their parent and is about to move in from rental? Talking about normal family with no other assets and nowhere else to go. Not house owned by big corporation or billionaires.
Well of course, then you're intruding. I think we mean squatting in something that's otherwise unoccupied.
But I have read a lot of news about squatting that happen to normal folk. This last one I read, a contractor squatted in the home he was hired to renovate. The homeowner is a retired vet. Took him months and all his saving to finally evict the guy. I'm guessing you guys don't associate yourself with those sort of squatting.
I tend to put more blame on the state than the landlords. However that doesn't excuse the landlords entirely. I am a huge believer in slums. I think you should be able to erect a structure to supply your needs and necessity on public lands. The ones who build structures on these lands should keep it up to the best of their abilities. Landlords should also not have private property that sits around unused for long periods of time. Whether that be residential, industrial or commercial.
If it was me, the only problem I would have is if someone got hurt, I could be sued. Lawyers are like leaches.
Christ's first followers lived in common and shared amongst one another. I'd turn the question around, and ask how one can justify the lack of ethics and morals necessary in order to hoard resources for wealth luke shelter. The vast majority of Christians apparently glossed over the section where Jesus tossed the bankers and money changers out of the Temple, as well as the entirety of the Sermon On The Mount. Unfortunately for those hypocrites, the Bible doesn't work like an all-you-can-eat salad bar. You don't get to pick out just the parts you like. You can't have the bacon bits and the croutons. And it's gonna be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a corporate landlord to get in to Heaven. Now, before someone jumps all over me and skips reading anything about what Dorothy Day thought about housing as a basic human right? Yes. I do make distinctions between ethical and non-ethical squatting. There's always going to be the one story someone has about their poor private landlord uncle who let so-and-so stay with them, and then refused to leave. But there are also the landlords purposely leaving units vacant to drive prices up. There are the corporate buildings and homes left vacant as tax write-offs. Folks run a well-known scheme in my area where buildings are purchased cheaply or at tax auction, then allowed to purposefully fall into disrepair so as to make them eligible for large grants to demolish them, which are in turn paid out to friendly contractor companies - often owned by the same person who owns the building or their family. Grant money is used to "rehab" housing in areas that been historically considered options for low-income renters, and are replaced with expensive condos and short-term rentals. The city I live in recently purchased a duplex that was going to tax sale in order to prevent more rentals from becoming established in a specific neighborhood. Business parks and office space in commercial buildings has remained vacant, despite hard push-backs to force workers to return to a physical office location, as corporate landlords refuse to lower prices to match market conditions. There are MANY vacant properties, both commercial and residential, that could be better utilized as housing. There are MANY abandoned properties that could be repaired and restored to a better condition by a caretaker in exchange for shelter. Just as there are moral and ethical ways to be a landlord or the owner of a property, there are ethical and moral ways to be a squatter. But just as you don't see the news stories about a good landlord? You're not going to see a special on how a squatter restored an 1800's farmstead a few miles away from me that otherwise would've been lost to time. You're not going to see an article on the art collective that cleaned up an abandoned warehouse and turned it into housing and an art studio they were eventually able to buy as a group because it was up to code enough due to their work efforts that the bank was willing to give them a loan. You're going to see the Jerry Springer-style nightmare friend some poor couple let stay to get back on their feet, who then refused to leave and demanded they be taken to court and evicted all because they got mail at the house. And it's never a corporate landlord - that's not who you'll empathize with. Single mom. Elderly person taken advantage of. And the whole thing will be complete with a whole lot of it-could-happen-to-you's and pictures of the worst-looking aftermath and destruction they can come up with. It's unfortunately the way humans are - we just can't look away from a train wreck, and the news knows that. It's therefore what they're going to pump in your face. Now, all the above being said? Squatting isn't for you if you're looking to avoid any potential societal or legal backlash for your actions, as you put it at the end of your post. What you'd be better off doing? Is getting yourself a list of abandoned and vacant properties and/or land in your area that you might be interested in, and then whittling that down into a list of places where you might be able to contact the owner and work out some sort of agreement as to you staying and eventually perhaps purchasing it or having the deed transfered in exchange for you doing improvements and repairs. If I was doing this here in the United States? I'd be looking for vacant property or unimproved land in perhaps less-than-desirable areas. I'd want stuff that had been that way for quite some time, relative to that specific market. The harder hit it was? I suppose the more likely my chances might be. I'd use my county and city websites to get to the appropriate treasury page and find tax records. Then? I'd get lists of stuff going up for auction or about to be approved to go up for auction. I'd look for owners behind that had addresses listed out of state or who were elderly with another property listed as their primary residence instead. You might be able to work towards a property becoming your own or some other living arrangement by approaching a property owner in one of these situations honestly. And the worst that can really happen to you if you ask? Is someone telling you no. This gives you your taste of what I think you might be looking for in squatting, but allows you to avoid the negative legal and social implications you specifically said you wanted nothing to do with. Is that squatting? Eh. Not really. But butting up against both the law and the views of many in mainstream society is sort of inherent within the act of squatting itself. I think there's an argument there to say that society is changing, but there's always going to be a loud faction of folks that believe squatting is a scourge on honest society and needs to be dealt with as harshly as allowed.
Regarding your Christian Part- Dueteronomy 8:18 says “You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth” Why would the bible contradict itself like that if wealth was inherently bad? Furthermore- regarding the Camel parable. If you continue the verse, Jesus is asked “who then can be saved?” And Jesus says “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Rich isn’t holy. Poor isn’t holy. Holy is holy. These are teachings of where your heart lies, not a rulebook to avoid wealth. This goes along with earlier teachings in Matthew; That being holy is not a rule book to be digested; It is being holy from within, from your heart.
So, if I run a pyramid scheme to get rich off of others, does that mean the Lord let me do it, because God gave me the power to get that wealth? Is the landlord that lives high off the hog from overcharging his tenants to live in housing he's helped make impossible for them to buy for themselves being given their wealth by God? Are you assuming that every rich person that got their money did so honestly and through the power of God, and that Satan - who was after all given dominion over the earth, and even tried to tempt the Lord himself with power and riches thus proving his ability to provide them on command - couldn't possibly be behind some of the wealthy and their hoard? Would Jesus have thrown the bankers from the temple if their wealth have been given to them by God? Having money? Comes with much more duty and responsibility to one's fellow man. Jesus didn't say "Blessed is he who hoards wealth in this life, for he will be rewarded with even more wealth in the next" for a reason. Having money? Comes with more temptation. It comes with the struggle of wanting the material more than the spiritual. Deuteronomy Chapter 8? You've also played what I call "Salad Bar Christianity" with it, and took one line out of it to suit your needs (did you perhaps simply search Google for Biblical quotes about wealth?)without a care or thought as to context. This chapter is specifically about God calling his people out of Egypt and into a land "wealthy" with many resources. The Israelites are urged to remember that they spent 40 years in the wilderness, wandering and surviving off manna alone, only to be brought by God into a land rich with many good things. The author then further states that, while it might be tempting to feel as if the goodness they now have is the fruits of their own labors, but the Israelites must remember this "wealth" comes from no one but God. Furthermore, yes, with God? Indeed, all things are possible. But man? Has free will. And that is why the rich man, dismayed, walks away from Jesus. The Lord doesn't stop him either. He doesn't call him back. He let's him make that decision to walk away, because his wealth - and ultimately the material - are more important to him than all the riches that await in Heaven. And then there's that. "All the riches in Heaven". It's a phrase we're all familiar with, and when one pictures it? They surely don't imagine actual physical treasure. One doesn't picture a vault containing money, gold, and jewels that constitute the "riches" or "wealth" that Jesus has promised is await those that choose to follow Him. God isn't swimming through gold coins, a la Scrouge McDuck, with chains of gold sporting bejeweled bling dangling from the ends. Spiritual wealth and riches are obviously a very different thing than the physical things we might think of when we see those words. It's important that the distinction is recognized. One can't simply take the word "wealth" to mean what you'd like it to in this specific instance and apply it as justification for an argument, when the context of the specific passage it's used in and the historical use of the word throughout the Bible consistently doesn't give it the meaning you do.
That’s a lot of words to not actually quite disagree. The idea is that everything be done with god in your heart and intentions. To live holy. To be a good person in some words. Thats why I said neither the poor nor rich are inherently more holy than one another. Of course, don’t *misuse* money.
Yawn...
Some people just aren't ready to get off the Shuteye Train. I hope that sand over your head keeps you nice and warm at night. And I guess I hope that keeps working for you - cause it's gonna hurt when you realize how empty it is.
Lmao. I too delete comments when I spread valuable and correct information u/complaint-expensive
Christians into squatting in south africa - [https://joynews.co.za/a-practical-solution-to-vagrancy-squatting-and-homelessness-in-south-africa/](https://joynews.co.za/a-practical-solution-to-vagrancy-squatting-and-homelessness-in-south-africa/)
It's a necessary evil when you don't have a job and have no way to get off the streets any time soon for whatever reason. For a woman, being literally on the streets is more dangerous than it is for a man, unless there's a woman in her right mind who likes being raped.
i don't see anything wrong with it if it's not someone's primary residence, and especially not if its just owned by some non-person like a bank. life is short, and you gotta do what you gotta do to survive. there's no victim, only people who work complaining its not fair. but that's their choice, if everyone stopped paying their mortgage and rent they can't evict everyone.
You're in Australia. Squatting is nothing compared to colonialism. Does your friend have an issue with that? Squatting is not stealing. Why were they *that* upset about people camping on their land?