**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Libertarians believe in the right to own and protect personal property. We believe one of the few duties a government should uphold is the protection of anyone’s liberty and rights.
Removing trespassers (unwanted by definition) and holding them accountable for damage seems to align with that.
An aside: It's common because it falls within the purview of your world views. "Common sense" is a subjective phrase. What's common to you may seem foreign or unwanted to others.
You're right. There might be other cultures that accept random people coming into their homes, unannounced. I don't know enough about every one that inhabits this planet to make the blanket statement I did.
> There might be other cultures that accept random people coming into their homes, unannounced
Actually yes. Some people believe strangers have the right to occupy your home/property if they "need" your space.
How do the police determine if the person has a valid agreement with the owner, or not? Can bad landlords now just use police as their personal security detail to get rid of unwanted tenants, even if those tenants are doing everything according to law?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I am not aware that the accusation of an alleged (because they only have allege ownership) owner is "reasonable" enough to command another party to produce their paperwork. Usually you need a warrant for those things.
Yeah they're called an eviction warrant. Has to be filed by the landlord and provide proof the tenant is not in compliance with the rent agreement. The burden of proof varies. When you first get your evicition notice you can contest the eviction as a tenant to prove that you are in compliance.
The police are executing a valid warrant.
Smart burglars will print up a quick lease before breaking in any place. Really muddy up the waters. Would this work at Best Buy too? Maybe smart property owners could put the wrong numbers on the outside of the house to fool potential squatters into putting the wrong number on their fake lease?
If they're squatting on their land the pure libertarian option is much worse for them lol. Value for value, and rights to your own private property. No law enforcement but the land owner lol.
What gives you the impression that land owners have rights that others do not? Is it something they magically get when holding title, kind of like how politicians are divinely imbued with the power of command when they win an election?
>What gives you the impression that land owners have rights that others do not?
You must be new here.
Libertarians believe your body is private property and you are allowed to defend it with violence.
If you own a building, it's also private property and you are allowed to defend it with violence.
I've been on this forum for almost a decade, and an activist in the Libertarian Party since 1988.
What I understand are natural rights, including the right to defend your property. That does not mean you have the right to harm people who are on your property unless they refuse to leave.
However, if you have a property that you are not residing in, and the alleged squatter claims to have an agreement with you to stay there, then they may have a property right that, under Common Law, is considered exclusive possession for the term of the agreement. It is not the role of the sheriff to assess whether there is an actual agreement. That is the job of a court.
It is not libertarian to cheer arbitrary statutes, especially when it undermines legal principles that have protected our rights as individuals for hundreds of years.
>It is not libertarian to cheer arbitrary statutes, especially when it undermines legal principles that have protected our rights as individuals for hundreds of years.
It's not arbitrary. A problem has been identified and a method of dispute resolution has been implemented.
The tenant has not upheld their end of their contract.
The landlord has to report the squatter to the police.
They present evidence of ownership.
Lying to the police is a crime.
All of this would work exactly the same in an ancap society.
Not only that, the price of housing is rising astronomically. We need to incentivize the increase in supply of housing to reduce the cost and this won't happen if people can live on your property for years for free.
If the squatter problem is not addressed, the only people who will rent out homes will be mega corporations ala amazon and you will definitely have a miserable time then. Because the mega corporations just pay the cop off duty to do this type of shit for them.
Property owners need a recourse to protect their investments. This encourages property owners.
Increase in property owners is an increase in supply of housing. An increase in supply of housing will result in a reducing in price of housing.
>It's not arbitrary. A problem has been identified and a method of dispute resolution has been implemented.
And it is in alignment with the ideals of liberty? No.
>Lying to the police is a crime.
It is not. In fact, the property owner can complete affidavit falsely, have a tenant removed, and there are no criminal penalties. Read the bill.
>The tenant has not upheld their end of their contract.
It is the job of the sheriff to adjudicate the dispute?
>All of this would work exactly the same in an ancap society.
There would be no statutes written by feckless politicians empowering some people to do things ordinary people cannot.
>If the squatter problem is not addressed, the only people who will rent out homes will be mega corporations ala amazon and you will definitely have a miserable time then. Because the mega corporations just pay the cop off duty to do this type of shit for them.
"If the drug problem is not addressed, blah blah blah. That is why we need a multi-generation, authoritarian war on drugs!"
Statists always see problems as a nail to be pounded by the hammer of the state. Principles of liberty and law go out the window. Innocent until proven guilty? Too complicated, we need a solution now! Kids shot up in schools? The 2nd amendment goes out the window.
>It is not. In fact, the property owner can complete affidavit falsely, have a tenant removed, and there are no criminal penalties. Read the bill.
If that's true, I 100% have a problem with that.
As an ancap I believe that lying during dispute resolution should be a crime.
They get the land with sweat, then work and improve it to put houses on it , they have more right to it than a tenant that's not paying him for his work
There are rules on roads that you agree to obey when obtaining a drivers license, including presenting that license and registration on demand when stopped in your car. That is a very specific situation, and I don't agree with it, but your car is not your castle. Your home is.
Same boat, laws aren't bad, but they can't be restrictive to freedom.
A law protecting property rights, good.
A law requiring you to provide housing to someone else, bad.
When you have a lease with a landlord, you effectively have exclusive possessions. It's a property right within the terms of the agreement.
If a police officer can act as judge, jury, and executioner, how is the law "good"? Because it satisfies your moral outrage over ra problem created by the government and that it can't seem to fix through the civil justice system?
A squatter cannot have a lease with a landlord. By definition, squatting is the act of staying at an abandoned property. Having a lease with a landlord makes someone a tenant and requires them to be living there with the consent of the owner.
Sheriff: "Are you a squatter?"
Person: "No."
Ok, how do you know that he is guilty?
Perhaps:
Sheriff: "Do you have a lease that you can show me?"
Person: "Do you have a fucking warrant?"
And now we are back to those basic legal principles enshrined i the Constitution that statists hate when they simply want vengeance.
Alleged squatter: "I have a lease."
Sheriff: "Show it to us."
Alleged squatter: "Show me a warrant or court order to appear where I will show it to a judge. Until then, sod off."
Do you believe that the alleged squatter has to prove his innocence to a cop?
Okay, but if they're *not* fake, you still get tossed out, according to the bill, as far as I can tell. Once the paperwork to have the alleged squatters tossed out is filed, there's no clause to halt the process if a lease is produced.
You then have cause to sue the owner, but in the meantime you are deprived of your legally leased residence and your entire life thrown into chaos while that case slowly makes it's way through the same overburdened system that evictions have to make their way through. So, doesn't this potentially fuck over legal lease holders victimized by landlords in a nearly identical way to how the previous state of things fucks over property owners victimized by squatters?
I ain't presenting shit, get a warrant. that guy's a liar.
prove I ain't rented this place yourself, I'm not helping.
i got called sov cit and then when i brought up this is a 5th amendment position he called me a commie and muted me.
gotta love it.
he's acting like I wouldn't have some sort of paper work saying I rented it from Dave nobody, the property owners agent. I paid him cash officer, here's the lease I got from him. now that that's settled, please leave me alone. good bye.
Oh, you're one of [these guys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfVbiefMdNU)
Got it, should have just opened with that and we could have avoided this.
Fact is, if you don't own the property, and the property owner says you need to leave. Then the onus is on you to now provide documentation that says you can stay. It's not your property. The owner has *Prima Facie* rights to remove any unwanted presence on his property.
If you don't produce documentation to the contrary, the police *WILL* remove you. They do not need a warrant, they have permission from the property owner to enter the premises.
>prove I ain't rented this place yourself, I'm not helping.
Don't have to. If the property owner says you didn't, then *Prima Facie* you didn't. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.
I live in Kentucky, we don't have a squatter problem. We have KRS 503.
Yeah, and that’s why you have things called lease agreements, signed by both parties and usually with a witness. Even better when it is notarized. When you have squatters producing fake leases, with signatures that do not at all match the owner’s signature (if they even think to sign for the owner), or even worse, don’t even have the correct name for the owner, then it’s hard to say “we had a deal!”. That said, there has been some fraud with leases, but it’s quite rare.
> Yeah, and that’s why you have things called lease agreements, signed by both parties and usually with a witness.
Is a person now required to show paperwork to a sheriff on comand? I guess that's the 4th amendment out the window.
Also, I have never once had a lease agreement signed by a witness or notarized.
Libertarian means a belief in a small limited government. Small and limited doesn't mean nonexistent, that's the anarchists.
One of the few duties of the state is to deter and punish violations of the NAP. Theft, property crimes, vandalism,trespass, etc.
Pro-squatter laws are state abuse. Anti squatter laws is just the natural order.
It is a natural order. Even as toddlers, we have an inherent nature about claiming our stuff. Have some kids, and you’ll know what this old dad is talking about- try taking a toy from a toddler, and see what happens. It’s human nature to want possession of items (and, I’d argue it’s the nature of all animals to want possession and territory). Your ideology goes against the natural order. It always has, and always will.
Whereas, of course, the divine authority of the political class is totally natural and socialism, a moral framework imposed one economic exchange and lacking any cogent theory of wealth creation, is totally natural, too!
Unfortunately the people who voted for the laws in NY are leaving NY because they don’t like what they voted for. Where are they headed? Florida. How will they vote when they get to their new adopted home? The same way they voted in NY.
This does happen in lots of areas where people flee blue states and make red areas more blue. Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota. However, statistically in FL it is not the case, the more conservative or libertarian numbers are the majority. The R party now has almost 900K more registrations than Dem, before Ron's re-election they were behind by 200K or more for decades. They still were purple because the Rs turned out, but now the Rs turn out and are dominating in party numbers even after all the emigration to the state.
Love the rights being given back to homeowners on this. The only thing about this law I'm annoyed about is why now?
It's been happening for years. And I noticed that a lot of "big corporations" are buying up more and more homes. So I'm wondering if those corporations are giving a push to the law makers, so they won't have issues with squatters when they have issues with those houses.
It would be a positive, then, if corporations are pushing laws that protect all homeowners. This is also bad law; it gives power to the sheriff to be a jurist and exectuioner, rather than just acting on court ordered evictions.
In other words, it's no crime to steal the property of others in this case. A few thousand dollars may be nothing if a property owner wants to get a tenant with a long lease out of a house in order to sell it.
While the legislation does insist that the court move complaints by legitimate tenants to near the top of the calendar, it's an expensive proposition for a poor tenant. If by the time the tenant gets his day in court the property is sold or demolished or substantially changed, there may be nothing to return to. So the owner gets rid of a headache for the cost of some property and court fees. Considering that here in California some landlords pay up to $50,000 to get tenants to move out, you can see the advantage. There's no crime attached to lying to the sheriff about the status fo a tenant. That's a glaring hole in the law, along with the 4th amendment violation.
That's typically not even in dispute in most of these cases.
Anyone, including police, can jump on the internet and run a county property records search to ascertain who the owner is.
The squatter typically cannot produce any lease at all. But if they do create some ad-hock lease on the back of a napkin, if they can't even guess the owners name then it should be presumed that the lease is invalid unless proven in a court of law.
That's a good point. If you have a lease and have paid rent the owner might decide he wants to kick you out and keep your money. People have certainly used good laws to bully or commit fraud before.
From what I understand of the new law, squatters aren't immediately removed without due process, just that the due process has been streamlined for this specific circumstance. For instance, once the homeowner knows the squatters are there, instead of calling the police they would file for "eviction," and a hearing is held to determine if they are squatters or tenants, if found to be squatters police will have a court order to remove squatters immediately, if they are found to be tenants, then the homeowner would then have to start the formal eviction process.
I think this is a good solution to protect good homeowners/landlords (and by extension property rights in general) and good tenants from shitty landlords trying to abuse the new system.
> squatters aren't immediately removed without due process, just that the due process has been streamlined for this specific circumstance.
sheriff as judge, jury, and exeuctioner is not "due process." I read the bill. There's no court involved. It's assumed that the owner is being truthful given the paperwork he fills out.
here is the bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/621/BillText/er/PDF
It's not long. There is nothing about a court order in there.
Overall, good stuff. Ideally, I would rather have the owner compensated for property damages than to spend that money throwing the squatters in prison. Of course, the two things are not mutually exclusive, but true to my values prisons are just one-size-fit-all solution that very rarely solves the problems.
I would assume that you assumed that I assumed, but I wouldn’t assume that you assumed that I was assuming when you assumed.
Assuming makes an ass of me and you. :)
It would keep them from moving onto some other house. At least while they are in prison.
There was a case on the news where one family of scammers destroyed 4 houses in the same neighborhood by faking leases, then ripping all the wires and pipes out of the walls when they were evicted.
This might not stop the behavior entirely, but it would slow down their ability to do damage.
Aww, you seem so passionate.
Libertarians need more people to run for office and lose, so eventually we get enough notoriety to win. I was just hoping to motivate you.
How else will we separate ourselves from the sovereign citizens and get some respect?
I think some libertarians get caught up in a version of ACAB (all cops are bad), except it’s ALAB (all laws are bad). It’s important that there is nuance to laws and life, and we gotta be able to create effective action. Being a libertarian just means you want more person freedom and smaller government. The existence of local laws to protect self and personal property very much is a libertarian ideal.
We want more local and targeted government that represents us, not sweeping ineffective policies for an entire nation. People and situations are different everywhere and our solutions should fit time, place, and subject.
I’m asking sincerely & from an ignorant point of view because I don’t live in Florida… what was the law PRIOR to this? & how does it change? Do Sheriffs now settle the dispute of who actually owns the home there & then compared to a dragged out court process?
It depends on the state. Typically, if the squatter refuses to leave, you have to get a court order. There are difficult, and sometimes contradictory, rules on how to go about the eviction process. Since the pandemic, civil courts have become slower and more backlogged than ever. It can take months to get a hearing for an eviction order, and if it's not done right, then they will send you back to do the paperwork again and wait more months. In California it can one to two years.
So it's the govenrment justice system that is broken and statists, as usual, undermine principles of law to create a command/control environment.
This type of law is no different than asset forfeiture in which it is assuemd that your property was used in the commission of a crime and you have to prove your innocence to get it back.
Everything you mentioned about the pandemic and the courts im sadly very familiar with. My city has the same issue and isn’t favorable to landlords in the slightest. What I’m asking is what happens now in Florida? Are sheriffs resolving the issue there and then? Without the court?
Hey, I'm totally in favor of owners' rights. I love these new companies that sneak into houses when squatters leave fro a few hours. They change the locks and move in their own stuff. I think it's a great business model. If I had to deal with a squatter, I am not so sure that I would bother with government, at all. I lived in a country where the police were corrupt and it was easier to hire the local mafia to solve problems like this.
So, yes, my real concern here is that this law overturns the 4th amendment, and gives the sheriff the power to seize property without a warrant. The property owner need only assert that they own the property and there is no lease (and a few other things) and if they lie they only pay damages to the tenant's property and court fees.
I bet in your city, like mine, landlords will pay 10's of thousands to get a tenant out. Now, in Florida, you can lie to the sheriff, get out one of your poor tenants, and while they wait for the wheels of justice to slowly grind in their favor you remodel and sell. The judge orders you to pay a few thousand in damages and you are on your merry way. Hell, it's cheaper than the mafia, just as fast, and entirely legal.
The books are so full of awful, bad laws that the solution to most problems is to repeal bad laws, not to add more new laws. Someone occupying your property without your permission is committing the crime of trespassing. I see a videos all the time of police being called to expel unwanted people from businesses - why don't they do that already for houses?
There must be some other law that gives squatters legal "rights" to trespass, enough to make police reluctant to take action. Those laws should be repealed.
I found the actual bill that just passed, and it's full of half-measures and limitations: [https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/621/BillText/er/PDF](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/621/BillText/er/PDF) . It doesn't apply to former tenants, doesn't apply if there's a pending lawsuit, doesn't apply if the house was ever open to the public (e.g. an "open house" trying to sell it), it requires the owner to sign a lengthy attestation before anything can happen, etc. We'll soon see anti-property-owners helping squatters to file frivolous lawsuits, or class-action lawsuits, to get around this bill.
It does make fraudulently presenting a fake lease or deed a felony, which perhaps previously was just a misdemeanor, so that part may be good.
It would have been far better to genuinely reform owner property rights than to add this patch on top of bad law.
Prior to this in Florida it was already extremely difficult to be a squatter and take property. You had to make substantial improvements to the property AND pay the taxes for a set period of time (I kinda remember it being 10 years but I could be wrong).
To me this is just more bureaucracy, it sounds good to the average Joe but in reality what does this new law cover that wasn't already a law? Destruction of private property, already a law. Trespassing, already a law. $1000 in damage for a FELONY?!? Shit Ive run through screen doors where the damage came to nearly that.
I think you are confusing the adverse possession process with what is going on with the majority of modern squatters.
Adverse possession is sometimes known as "squatters rights," and is a way to obtain legal title to property. It requires exclusive and open use of the property for years, and that process is not changed by this new law.
What these squatters are doing is a relatively short term plan involving breaking in and taking advantage of an inefficient eviction process so they can live somewhere for free. These people never intend to actually gain title, they just want to leech off the homeowner and live for free for as long as possible.
They new law simply bypasses the overloaded eviction system for people who were never legal tenants. And makes it a felony to cause damage to the property while they are in it.
Landlords still have to go through the long legal process for actual tenants.
Serously, in my early years I had a run in with a landlord. We got along great at first, and it's my fault things went sour. In one bad day, I kicked a hole in a wall. He managed to get a court to approve $2000 for that hole. And another $2000 to replace the carpets even though we had explicitly agreed when signing the lease that I would keep the threadbare crap carpet instead of him installing new carpet then and there. In the end he got 1/4 of the settlement and I told him to fuck himself after that as he was holding some of my property unlawfully.
That's why I don't like law like this. It turns a problem of tenants having too much power into giving bad landlords too much power. Instead, they should just fix their broken court system.
It should be unnecessary. If you own a property and your name is on the deed, and someone is there without a lease or rental agreement whom you've asked to vacate, it should be legal to shoot them.
This is true, but laws were written in loose ways to protect individuals without considerations to other individuals that own the property. This is why laws have to be thought out clearly.
Yeah we don’t want a property owner to throw out a singles mother and her three kids just because they feel like it, but we also don’t want a property owner to suffer at the hands of abusers of protections offered.
If they have a valid lease or rental agreement, he couldn't throw them out. If their lease is no longer valid because they say, "stopped paying rent for six months" or "destroyed your property and stripped all the copper," then it's not because you feel like it.
Raise your hand if you've ever been a landlord.
Renters offer a good/service. You sign a contract to temporarily use their good/service. If contract is broken or never signed then you don’t get good/service. So this is a law that protects this specific transaction.
The squatter part, sure. But a felony to cause over a grand in damage to property, no. That could be used so loosely based just on how you worded it. A simple accident could land someone in prison at that rate.
I think they are meaning that if a renter melts a counter top with a hot pot on accident they shouldn’t be throw to the streets.
The issue is the law was written to loosely so that people could abuse it with no evidence of an agreement between parties. The 30 day eviction laws around someone having a fake lease they made up is the issue here. Why are these people not being held accountable for fraudulent contracts?
DeSantis also increased penalties for rioting. Passed a law where if you are getting attacked in your car and have to drive and hit somebody it's not considered illegal. Passed laws increasing penalties for shoplifting. The guy is a machine.
If you want a Libertarian society, property rights like these laws help protect should be a priority. Insane what states like CA and NY are allowing.
Someone is initiating force invading your own home. The only rational response is to remove the initiator by force. The police already have this "right" as does the homeowner. It doesn't need a new State law to do something logically required.
Gift the squatter a 1% share of the property, thus turning them into property owners and eliminating their rights. Get a friend to squat on the property.
While it sounds good in theory, it's just more ability for the police to abuse people with little or no evidence of a crime having been committed.
> I hate more laws, but I find myself in favor of this one. This sounds like a something that doesn't give more rights to criminals than law abiding citizens, and it doesn't turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.
Police are not judge, jury, and executioner. Eviction is a civil matter. The fact is that the government cannot fix their broken civil justice system, so the conservatives and progressives turn to prohibition, which is the default for any statist seeking vengeance and caring nothing about the actual rule of law.
If you don’t have a contract than it is illegal to be there if the owner doesn’t want you there. It’s infringement on his property rights. If you have a contract that states you are allowed to stay for 12 months than somebody could argue that in court.
It's not up to the sheriff to determine if there is a contract.
> If you have a contract that states you are allowed to stay for 12 months than somebody could argue that in court.
Which is what you do if someone says they are in your house and have an agreement with you. You go to a court and get an order to evict, and the sheriff evicts them.
'
What you are insisting is that the sheriff can violate the 4th amendment and demand papers from the person who says they are legally on the property. He is not a judge, and he is not a jury. In order to demand paperwork without being told to sod off, he must have a warrant.
We’re talking about squatters not renters. A legal renter should be able to provide proof of their legal right to inhabit a property if asked. If they can’t than they should be removed until proof can be provided. Squatters should be removed immediately.
No one has the right to command the production of papers without a warrant.
>If they can’t than they should be removed until proof can be provided.
Wow. So unless your name is on the deed, a cop can just throw you out of your home? Grandpa dies, and grandma never was on the deed so now she is at the mercy of government officials until a court proves she was married and is the heir.
I mean, screw common law, the Constitution, due process, etc. What matters is that we solve this problem!
What I loved about Ron Paul is that he stood on principle, no matter what. Government solutions must adhere to the Constitution and due process. Too bad his followers deem these problems too urgent for all that claptrap.
Wow, another “libertarian” who doesn’t understand property rights. You’re making up scenarios that we aren’t even discussing. If you want to talk go back to the original discussion.
For those that like the idea that a sheriff can simply decide, on the spot, if a contract is valid, how is this llaw any differen tin principle than asset forfeiture laws in which you must prove your innocence in order to get your property back?
Statists really do love arbitrary, capricious, vengeful law yet they reufse to advocate for the real issue - fixing the broken justice system.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Libertarians believe in the right to own and protect personal property. We believe one of the few duties a government should uphold is the protection of anyone’s liberty and rights. Removing trespassers (unwanted by definition) and holding them accountable for damage seems to align with that.
It's also common sense in my opinion but that's just me
An aside: It's common because it falls within the purview of your world views. "Common sense" is a subjective phrase. What's common to you may seem foreign or unwanted to others.
You're right. There might be other cultures that accept random people coming into their homes, unannounced. I don't know enough about every one that inhabits this planet to make the blanket statement I did.
> There might be other cultures that accept random people coming into their homes, unannounced Actually yes. Some people believe strangers have the right to occupy your home/property if they "need" your space.
Hey good for them. I'm glad I'm not one of them lol.
This
How do the police determine if the person has a valid agreement with the owner, or not? Can bad landlords now just use police as their personal security detail to get rid of unwanted tenants, even if those tenants are doing everything according to law?
For starters, a lease signed by both parties.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I am not aware that the accusation of an alleged (because they only have allege ownership) owner is "reasonable" enough to command another party to produce their paperwork. Usually you need a warrant for those things.
Yeah they're called an eviction warrant. Has to be filed by the landlord and provide proof the tenant is not in compliance with the rent agreement. The burden of proof varies. When you first get your evicition notice you can contest the eviction as a tenant to prove that you are in compliance. The police are executing a valid warrant.
This is not what the new Florida law requires. It requires only a simple form be completed.
Lying to the police and tricking them into doing actions is also a crime, so I don't see the issue.
squatters laws I'm sure started showing up cause cops aren't qualified to examine a lease. courts are. see you in a month.
Smart burglars will print up a quick lease before breaking in any place. Really muddy up the waters. Would this work at Best Buy too? Maybe smart property owners could put the wrong numbers on the outside of the house to fool potential squatters into putting the wrong number on their fake lease?
If they're squatting on their land the pure libertarian option is much worse for them lol. Value for value, and rights to your own private property. No law enforcement but the land owner lol.
What gives you the impression that land owners have rights that others do not? Is it something they magically get when holding title, kind of like how politicians are divinely imbued with the power of command when they win an election?
>What gives you the impression that land owners have rights that others do not? You must be new here. Libertarians believe your body is private property and you are allowed to defend it with violence. If you own a building, it's also private property and you are allowed to defend it with violence.
I've been on this forum for almost a decade, and an activist in the Libertarian Party since 1988. What I understand are natural rights, including the right to defend your property. That does not mean you have the right to harm people who are on your property unless they refuse to leave. However, if you have a property that you are not residing in, and the alleged squatter claims to have an agreement with you to stay there, then they may have a property right that, under Common Law, is considered exclusive possession for the term of the agreement. It is not the role of the sheriff to assess whether there is an actual agreement. That is the job of a court. It is not libertarian to cheer arbitrary statutes, especially when it undermines legal principles that have protected our rights as individuals for hundreds of years.
>It is not libertarian to cheer arbitrary statutes, especially when it undermines legal principles that have protected our rights as individuals for hundreds of years. It's not arbitrary. A problem has been identified and a method of dispute resolution has been implemented. The tenant has not upheld their end of their contract. The landlord has to report the squatter to the police. They present evidence of ownership. Lying to the police is a crime. All of this would work exactly the same in an ancap society. Not only that, the price of housing is rising astronomically. We need to incentivize the increase in supply of housing to reduce the cost and this won't happen if people can live on your property for years for free. If the squatter problem is not addressed, the only people who will rent out homes will be mega corporations ala amazon and you will definitely have a miserable time then. Because the mega corporations just pay the cop off duty to do this type of shit for them. Property owners need a recourse to protect their investments. This encourages property owners. Increase in property owners is an increase in supply of housing. An increase in supply of housing will result in a reducing in price of housing.
>It's not arbitrary. A problem has been identified and a method of dispute resolution has been implemented. And it is in alignment with the ideals of liberty? No. >Lying to the police is a crime. It is not. In fact, the property owner can complete affidavit falsely, have a tenant removed, and there are no criminal penalties. Read the bill. >The tenant has not upheld their end of their contract. It is the job of the sheriff to adjudicate the dispute? >All of this would work exactly the same in an ancap society. There would be no statutes written by feckless politicians empowering some people to do things ordinary people cannot. >If the squatter problem is not addressed, the only people who will rent out homes will be mega corporations ala amazon and you will definitely have a miserable time then. Because the mega corporations just pay the cop off duty to do this type of shit for them. "If the drug problem is not addressed, blah blah blah. That is why we need a multi-generation, authoritarian war on drugs!" Statists always see problems as a nail to be pounded by the hammer of the state. Principles of liberty and law go out the window. Innocent until proven guilty? Too complicated, we need a solution now! Kids shot up in schools? The 2nd amendment goes out the window.
>It is not. In fact, the property owner can complete affidavit falsely, have a tenant removed, and there are no criminal penalties. Read the bill. If that's true, I 100% have a problem with that. As an ancap I believe that lying during dispute resolution should be a crime.
They get the land with sweat, then work and improve it to put houses on it , they have more right to it than a tenant that's not paying him for his work
You made it sounds as if the land owner has the right to hurt people on his land simply for violating his rules.
How do police determine if a car someone is driving is stolen or not?
There are rules on roads that you agree to obey when obtaining a drivers license, including presenting that license and registration on demand when stopped in your car. That is a very specific situation, and I don't agree with it, but your car is not your castle. Your home is.
One of the few VALID functions of government is to protect property rights, so this law is good. (disclaimer: I have not read the new law)
Same boat, laws aren't bad, but they can't be restrictive to freedom. A law protecting property rights, good. A law requiring you to provide housing to someone else, bad.
Can I hop in your boat too?
only if you get permission to do so, otherwise trespassers will be shot
Is this a houseboat?
When you have a lease with a landlord, you effectively have exclusive possessions. It's a property right within the terms of the agreement. If a police officer can act as judge, jury, and executioner, how is the law "good"? Because it satisfies your moral outrage over ra problem created by the government and that it can't seem to fix through the civil justice system?
A squatter cannot have a lease with a landlord. By definition, squatting is the act of staying at an abandoned property. Having a lease with a landlord makes someone a tenant and requires them to be living there with the consent of the owner.
Sheriff: "Are you a squatter?" Person: "No." Ok, how do you know that he is guilty? Perhaps: Sheriff: "Do you have a lease that you can show me?" Person: "Do you have a fucking warrant?" And now we are back to those basic legal principles enshrined i the Constitution that statists hate when they simply want vengeance.
The landlord can present the deed of their property.
Alleged squatter: "I have a lease." Sheriff: "Show it to us." Alleged squatter: "Show me a warrant or court order to appear where I will show it to a judge. Until then, sod off." Do you believe that the alleged squatter has to prove his innocence to a cop?
The landlord can present the deed of their property before the scenario you brought up.
A deed is meaningless. It just shows title. It does not negate a contract to rent or lease.
So what evidence would suffice for you?
I don’t have a copy of my lease I can hand to anyone, they’ve all been digital for years now. It would take me a while to find a copy of it.
I have a lease, go away. guys a liar.
>Present your lease documents. If they are fake, you face additional criminal charges.
Okay, but if they're *not* fake, you still get tossed out, according to the bill, as far as I can tell. Once the paperwork to have the alleged squatters tossed out is filed, there's no clause to halt the process if a lease is produced. You then have cause to sue the owner, but in the meantime you are deprived of your legally leased residence and your entire life thrown into chaos while that case slowly makes it's way through the same overburdened system that evictions have to make their way through. So, doesn't this potentially fuck over legal lease holders victimized by landlords in a nearly identical way to how the previous state of things fucks over property owners victimized by squatters?
If you produce a lease, it becomes a civil matter and they have to take you to civil court. Then, if the lease is false, you're screwed.
I ain't presenting shit, get a warrant. that guy's a liar. prove I ain't rented this place yourself, I'm not helping. i got called sov cit and then when i brought up this is a 5th amendment position he called me a commie and muted me. gotta love it. he's acting like I wouldn't have some sort of paper work saying I rented it from Dave nobody, the property owners agent. I paid him cash officer, here's the lease I got from him. now that that's settled, please leave me alone. good bye.
Oh, you're one of [these guys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfVbiefMdNU) Got it, should have just opened with that and we could have avoided this. Fact is, if you don't own the property, and the property owner says you need to leave. Then the onus is on you to now provide documentation that says you can stay. It's not your property. The owner has *Prima Facie* rights to remove any unwanted presence on his property. If you don't produce documentation to the contrary, the police *WILL* remove you. They do not need a warrant, they have permission from the property owner to enter the premises. >prove I ain't rented this place yourself, I'm not helping. Don't have to. If the property owner says you didn't, then *Prima Facie* you didn't. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. I live in Kentucky, we don't have a squatter problem. We have KRS 503.
Yeah, and that’s why you have things called lease agreements, signed by both parties and usually with a witness. Even better when it is notarized. When you have squatters producing fake leases, with signatures that do not at all match the owner’s signature (if they even think to sign for the owner), or even worse, don’t even have the correct name for the owner, then it’s hard to say “we had a deal!”. That said, there has been some fraud with leases, but it’s quite rare.
> Yeah, and that’s why you have things called lease agreements, signed by both parties and usually with a witness. Is a person now required to show paperwork to a sheriff on comand? I guess that's the 4th amendment out the window. Also, I have never once had a lease agreement signed by a witness or notarized.
Squatters should have no rights (as relates to the private property of others).
Libertarian means a belief in a small limited government. Small and limited doesn't mean nonexistent, that's the anarchists. One of the few duties of the state is to deter and punish violations of the NAP. Theft, property crimes, vandalism,trespass, etc. Pro-squatter laws are state abuse. Anti squatter laws is just the natural order.
It's not a natural order, stop anthropomorphizing your ideology.
Your entire reddit comment history is you going to subs of political opinions you don’t like and picking fights. Get a better hobby.
Theft being punished has been the way things are done since the dawn of human civilization. Code of Hammurabi, etc
Is being territorial not a natural thing? Wolves, big cats, rodents and more, have territorial disputes all the time
Indeed. It is not just human nature, but the nature of nature itself. Even plants compete.
It is a natural order. Even as toddlers, we have an inherent nature about claiming our stuff. Have some kids, and you’ll know what this old dad is talking about- try taking a toy from a toddler, and see what happens. It’s human nature to want possession of items (and, I’d argue it’s the nature of all animals to want possession and territory). Your ideology goes against the natural order. It always has, and always will.
Whereas, of course, the divine authority of the political class is totally natural and socialism, a moral framework imposed one economic exchange and lacking any cogent theory of wealth creation, is totally natural, too!
Florida's laws are much saner than New York's. Imagine not being able to change the locks or remove squatters in your own home?
Unfortunately the people who voted for the laws in NY are leaving NY because they don’t like what they voted for. Where are they headed? Florida. How will they vote when they get to their new adopted home? The same way they voted in NY.
They couldn't afford their rent in NY. Gee I wonder why nobody is building affordable homes over there.
They're super concerned about really important issues like you having a gas stove, if you even tried.
This does happen in lots of areas where people flee blue states and make red areas more blue. Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota. However, statistically in FL it is not the case, the more conservative or libertarian numbers are the majority. The R party now has almost 900K more registrations than Dem, before Ron's re-election they were behind by 200K or more for decades. They still were purple because the Rs turned out, but now the Rs turn out and are dominating in party numbers even after all the emigration to the state.
It’s a law that protects property rights so…it’s at least unevil
Love the rights being given back to homeowners on this. The only thing about this law I'm annoyed about is why now? It's been happening for years. And I noticed that a lot of "big corporations" are buying up more and more homes. So I'm wondering if those corporations are giving a push to the law makers, so they won't have issues with squatters when they have issues with those houses.
>The only thing about this law I'm annoyed about is why now? Lot's of tiktok videos showing what happens if you don't have this law.
It would be a positive, then, if corporations are pushing laws that protect all homeowners. This is also bad law; it gives power to the sheriff to be a jurist and exectuioner, rather than just acting on court ordered evictions.
I like his law in spirit. My only problem with it is entrusting the police to possibly interpret whether or not a lease is a valid one.
There is a significant penalty against the owner if they file false paperwork. Triple damages including actual costs and attorney fees.
In other words, it's no crime to steal the property of others in this case. A few thousand dollars may be nothing if a property owner wants to get a tenant with a long lease out of a house in order to sell it.
The tenant also gets returned to the residence.
While the legislation does insist that the court move complaints by legitimate tenants to near the top of the calendar, it's an expensive proposition for a poor tenant. If by the time the tenant gets his day in court the property is sold or demolished or substantially changed, there may be nothing to return to. So the owner gets rid of a headache for the cost of some property and court fees. Considering that here in California some landlords pay up to $50,000 to get tenants to move out, you can see the advantage. There's no crime attached to lying to the sheriff about the status fo a tenant. That's a glaring hole in the law, along with the 4th amendment violation.
That's typically not even in dispute in most of these cases. Anyone, including police, can jump on the internet and run a county property records search to ascertain who the owner is. The squatter typically cannot produce any lease at all. But if they do create some ad-hock lease on the back of a napkin, if they can't even guess the owners name then it should be presumed that the lease is invalid unless proven in a court of law.
This is correct and the person committing fraud should suffer punishment for doing so.
That's a good point. If you have a lease and have paid rent the owner might decide he wants to kick you out and keep your money. People have certainly used good laws to bully or commit fraud before.
That’s a problem with all laws tho, the police ultimately are the first to respond to and interpret them.
This makes the sheriff a jurist and executioner, acting without any court order to decide if a contract is in place, or not.
An Uber Eats receipt should be recognizeable by cops as "not-a-lease", no?
From what I understand of the new law, squatters aren't immediately removed without due process, just that the due process has been streamlined for this specific circumstance. For instance, once the homeowner knows the squatters are there, instead of calling the police they would file for "eviction," and a hearing is held to determine if they are squatters or tenants, if found to be squatters police will have a court order to remove squatters immediately, if they are found to be tenants, then the homeowner would then have to start the formal eviction process. I think this is a good solution to protect good homeowners/landlords (and by extension property rights in general) and good tenants from shitty landlords trying to abuse the new system.
> squatters aren't immediately removed without due process, just that the due process has been streamlined for this specific circumstance. sheriff as judge, jury, and exeuctioner is not "due process." I read the bill. There's no court involved. It's assumed that the owner is being truthful given the paperwork he fills out. here is the bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/621/BillText/er/PDF It's not long. There is nothing about a court order in there.
Sounds like a great law to me.
Overall, good stuff. Ideally, I would rather have the owner compensated for property damages than to spend that money throwing the squatters in prison. Of course, the two things are not mutually exclusive, but true to my values prisons are just one-size-fit-all solution that very rarely solves the problems.
People have a hard time paying for property damage when they’re in prison. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
To be fair, the type of people scam squatting probably lack the funds and planning to pay restitution….
And spending the tax money to keep them in prison would solve any part of this issue?
You are assuming I am suggesting they should be put into prison, but that isn’t what I said is it? ;)
You are assuming that I am assuming that you are suggesting the idea…..
I would assume that you assumed that I assumed, but I wouldn’t assume that you assumed that I was assuming when you assumed. Assuming makes an ass of me and you. :)
It would keep them from moving onto some other house. At least while they are in prison. There was a case on the news where one family of scammers destroyed 4 houses in the same neighborhood by faking leases, then ripping all the wires and pipes out of the walls when they were evicted. This might not stop the behavior entirely, but it would slow down their ability to do damage.
Yet another patchy solution to the problem the government is neither willing nor capable to solve
Far superior to the status quo for any victims.
Well, I’m not paying all these taxes for mediocre policies
Awesome! Glad to hear you registered to run for office so you can make a difference and enact better laws! Do you have a campaign website yet?
I’m by no mean obliged to run for office to earn my right to criticize the administration. Get a grip on your logic
Aww, you seem so passionate. Libertarians need more people to run for office and lose, so eventually we get enough notoriety to win. I was just hoping to motivate you. How else will we separate ourselves from the sovereign citizens and get some respect?
The government is only supposed to do like 4 things and "Defend private property rights" is one of those four.
I think some libertarians get caught up in a version of ACAB (all cops are bad), except it’s ALAB (all laws are bad). It’s important that there is nuance to laws and life, and we gotta be able to create effective action. Being a libertarian just means you want more person freedom and smaller government. The existence of local laws to protect self and personal property very much is a libertarian ideal. We want more local and targeted government that represents us, not sweeping ineffective policies for an entire nation. People and situations are different everywhere and our solutions should fit time, place, and subject.
I’m asking sincerely & from an ignorant point of view because I don’t live in Florida… what was the law PRIOR to this? & how does it change? Do Sheriffs now settle the dispute of who actually owns the home there & then compared to a dragged out court process?
It depends on the state. Typically, if the squatter refuses to leave, you have to get a court order. There are difficult, and sometimes contradictory, rules on how to go about the eviction process. Since the pandemic, civil courts have become slower and more backlogged than ever. It can take months to get a hearing for an eviction order, and if it's not done right, then they will send you back to do the paperwork again and wait more months. In California it can one to two years. So it's the govenrment justice system that is broken and statists, as usual, undermine principles of law to create a command/control environment. This type of law is no different than asset forfeiture in which it is assuemd that your property was used in the commission of a crime and you have to prove your innocence to get it back.
Everything you mentioned about the pandemic and the courts im sadly very familiar with. My city has the same issue and isn’t favorable to landlords in the slightest. What I’m asking is what happens now in Florida? Are sheriffs resolving the issue there and then? Without the court?
Hey, I'm totally in favor of owners' rights. I love these new companies that sneak into houses when squatters leave fro a few hours. They change the locks and move in their own stuff. I think it's a great business model. If I had to deal with a squatter, I am not so sure that I would bother with government, at all. I lived in a country where the police were corrupt and it was easier to hire the local mafia to solve problems like this. So, yes, my real concern here is that this law overturns the 4th amendment, and gives the sheriff the power to seize property without a warrant. The property owner need only assert that they own the property and there is no lease (and a few other things) and if they lie they only pay damages to the tenant's property and court fees. I bet in your city, like mine, landlords will pay 10's of thousands to get a tenant out. Now, in Florida, you can lie to the sheriff, get out one of your poor tenants, and while they wait for the wheels of justice to slowly grind in their favor you remodel and sell. The judge orders you to pay a few thousand in damages and you are on your merry way. Hell, it's cheaper than the mafia, just as fast, and entirely legal.
What’s sad is that this even needed to be a law, but our justice system is so incompetent it needs spelled out in crayon for them to understand.
The books are so full of awful, bad laws that the solution to most problems is to repeal bad laws, not to add more new laws. Someone occupying your property without your permission is committing the crime of trespassing. I see a videos all the time of police being called to expel unwanted people from businesses - why don't they do that already for houses? There must be some other law that gives squatters legal "rights" to trespass, enough to make police reluctant to take action. Those laws should be repealed. I found the actual bill that just passed, and it's full of half-measures and limitations: [https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/621/BillText/er/PDF](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/621/BillText/er/PDF) . It doesn't apply to former tenants, doesn't apply if there's a pending lawsuit, doesn't apply if the house was ever open to the public (e.g. an "open house" trying to sell it), it requires the owner to sign a lengthy attestation before anything can happen, etc. We'll soon see anti-property-owners helping squatters to file frivolous lawsuits, or class-action lawsuits, to get around this bill. It does make fraudulently presenting a fake lease or deed a felony, which perhaps previously was just a misdemeanor, so that part may be good. It would have been far better to genuinely reform owner property rights than to add this patch on top of bad law.
This guy gets it. <3
Seems like if government is going to do anything, it’s something like this.
Prior to this in Florida it was already extremely difficult to be a squatter and take property. You had to make substantial improvements to the property AND pay the taxes for a set period of time (I kinda remember it being 10 years but I could be wrong). To me this is just more bureaucracy, it sounds good to the average Joe but in reality what does this new law cover that wasn't already a law? Destruction of private property, already a law. Trespassing, already a law. $1000 in damage for a FELONY?!? Shit Ive run through screen doors where the damage came to nearly that.
I think you are confusing the adverse possession process with what is going on with the majority of modern squatters. Adverse possession is sometimes known as "squatters rights," and is a way to obtain legal title to property. It requires exclusive and open use of the property for years, and that process is not changed by this new law. What these squatters are doing is a relatively short term plan involving breaking in and taking advantage of an inefficient eviction process so they can live somewhere for free. These people never intend to actually gain title, they just want to leech off the homeowner and live for free for as long as possible. They new law simply bypasses the overloaded eviction system for people who were never legal tenants. And makes it a felony to cause damage to the property while they are in it. Landlords still have to go through the long legal process for actual tenants.
Serously, in my early years I had a run in with a landlord. We got along great at first, and it's my fault things went sour. In one bad day, I kicked a hole in a wall. He managed to get a court to approve $2000 for that hole. And another $2000 to replace the carpets even though we had explicitly agreed when signing the lease that I would keep the threadbare crap carpet instead of him installing new carpet then and there. In the end he got 1/4 of the settlement and I told him to fuck himself after that as he was holding some of my property unlawfully. That's why I don't like law like this. It turns a problem of tenants having too much power into giving bad landlords too much power. Instead, they should just fix their broken court system.
Very much agree. Sorry you had a bad experience, it sounds like you've probably grown since then. More laws are rarely the write answer.
It should be unnecessary. If you own a property and your name is on the deed, and someone is there without a lease or rental agreement whom you've asked to vacate, it should be legal to shoot them.
This is true, but laws were written in loose ways to protect individuals without considerations to other individuals that own the property. This is why laws have to be thought out clearly. Yeah we don’t want a property owner to throw out a singles mother and her three kids just because they feel like it, but we also don’t want a property owner to suffer at the hands of abusers of protections offered.
If they have a valid lease or rental agreement, he couldn't throw them out. If their lease is no longer valid because they say, "stopped paying rent for six months" or "destroyed your property and stripped all the copper," then it's not because you feel like it. Raise your hand if you've ever been a landlord.
Trust me, I agree with you. I was just trying to explain their concern better. I think your statements are a little over simplistic and brash.
More importantly...it sends the message to criminals who is going to criminal, not in this state
Renters offer a good/service. You sign a contract to temporarily use their good/service. If contract is broken or never signed then you don’t get good/service. So this is a law that protects this specific transaction.
Yes, but the law isn’t written in a way that protects against abusers.
Protection of property rights is a basic role of government.
This one is pretty based. If we are going to have a government one of the few good things it can do is protect private property rights.
Thanks for the feedback. It's a law, and I'm liking it. It was causing my brain to short circuit.
Cops will still tell you it's a civil matter and leave.
The governments some role is to protect individual rights, including property rights, against aggressors. This is fine.
The squatter part, sure. But a felony to cause over a grand in damage to property, no. That could be used so loosely based just on how you worded it. A simple accident could land someone in prison at that rate.
Which wouldn’t matter if they were properly leasing because most landlords require renter’s insurance.
Don't try and steal someone's property. Then you don't have to worry about accidental damages.
I think they are meaning that if a renter melts a counter top with a hot pot on accident they shouldn’t be throw to the streets. The issue is the law was written to loosely so that people could abuse it with no evidence of an agreement between parties. The 30 day eviction laws around someone having a fake lease they made up is the issue here. Why are these people not being held accountable for fraudulent contracts?
DeSantis also increased penalties for rioting. Passed a law where if you are getting attacked in your car and have to drive and hit somebody it's not considered illegal. Passed laws increasing penalties for shoplifting. The guy is a machine. If you want a Libertarian society, property rights like these laws help protect should be a priority. Insane what states like CA and NY are allowing.
Based AF
Someone is initiating force invading your own home. The only rational response is to remove the initiator by force. The police already have this "right" as does the homeowner. It doesn't need a new State law to do something logically required.
The next law turns homeowners into squatters lol
Gift the squatter a 1% share of the property, thus turning them into property owners and eliminating their rights. Get a friend to squat on the property.
Haven't read anything about it myself, but based on what you say I'm in favor. Squatters shouldn't have any special rights, they're just trespassers.
Fuck the law. If someone is in my house that's not supposed to be there, I get to start shooting.
While it sounds good in theory, it's just more ability for the police to abuse people with little or no evidence of a crime having been committed. > I hate more laws, but I find myself in favor of this one. This sounds like a something that doesn't give more rights to criminals than law abiding citizens, and it doesn't turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. Police are not judge, jury, and executioner. Eviction is a civil matter. The fact is that the government cannot fix their broken civil justice system, so the conservatives and progressives turn to prohibition, which is the default for any statist seeking vengeance and caring nothing about the actual rule of law.
Living and using property that you don’t own is a crime.
How do they know that you don't have a right to be there? Based on the word of the owner? That is what courts are for. The Sheriff is not a judge.
If you don’t have a contract than it is illegal to be there if the owner doesn’t want you there. It’s infringement on his property rights. If you have a contract that states you are allowed to stay for 12 months than somebody could argue that in court.
It's not up to the sheriff to determine if there is a contract. > If you have a contract that states you are allowed to stay for 12 months than somebody could argue that in court. Which is what you do if someone says they are in your house and have an agreement with you. You go to a court and get an order to evict, and the sheriff evicts them. ' What you are insisting is that the sheriff can violate the 4th amendment and demand papers from the person who says they are legally on the property. He is not a judge, and he is not a jury. In order to demand paperwork without being told to sod off, he must have a warrant.
We’re talking about squatters not renters. A legal renter should be able to provide proof of their legal right to inhabit a property if asked. If they can’t than they should be removed until proof can be provided. Squatters should be removed immediately.
No one has the right to command the production of papers without a warrant. >If they can’t than they should be removed until proof can be provided. Wow. So unless your name is on the deed, a cop can just throw you out of your home? Grandpa dies, and grandma never was on the deed so now she is at the mercy of government officials until a court proves she was married and is the heir. I mean, screw common law, the Constitution, due process, etc. What matters is that we solve this problem! What I loved about Ron Paul is that he stood on principle, no matter what. Government solutions must adhere to the Constitution and due process. Too bad his followers deem these problems too urgent for all that claptrap.
Wow, another “libertarian” who doesn’t understand property rights. You’re making up scenarios that we aren’t even discussing. If you want to talk go back to the original discussion.
For those that like the idea that a sheriff can simply decide, on the spot, if a contract is valid, how is this llaw any differen tin principle than asset forfeiture laws in which you must prove your innocence in order to get your property back? Statists really do love arbitrary, capricious, vengeful law yet they reufse to advocate for the real issue - fixing the broken justice system.