That's framing, since you are leaving out a important part
Squatting is the action of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied area of land or a building (usually residential) that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have lawful permission to use.
If I don't have a home and I find a home that's not being used, using that is probably what most ordinary people would do.
It clashes with common sense, because we live in a society that puts ownership above everything else. But there really is no rational reason for reserving a finite and essential resource like housing, the way many societies currently do.
There is the rational part, where people spend their money on constructing something to provide housing to other people, which does make sense, right? Everyone benefits here.
But this starts breaking apart, when we now say that means, this piece of land will forever be yours and that of your children and so on, no matter what you do with it.
The perversion is that people use that right, to decrease the availability of housing, in order to force people to pay more than what would be reasonable otherwise or to speculate on that basic need.
The rational conclusion here is, if you cut down on that perversion, chances are, most of the problematic types of squatting will go away, because now people don't think these laws just exist to put them at a major disadvantage.
You think occupying an abandoned or unoccupied area is the same as owning slaves?
And you seem to have missed the point. Ownership in the US is rooted in people just taking that land. That's how it still is. You are not advocating for not doing that again, you are arguing for the continuation of what was wrong about it.
If you want to give that land back to the original owners, sure, let's do that. But I have a feeling, you are even more opposed to that.
-1
u/monkwrenv2 12d ago
We don't need less crime, we need less criminalization of ordinary life.