Continuing, “squatter’s rights” may have made sense at a time when there were actual unclaimed parcels of land on the North American Continent unoccupied even by Indigenous tribes. It might even make sense in a hypothetical Post-Apocalyptic scenario where much of Humankind is wiped out. But with already-claimed, labor-mixed, built-upon real estate with good title and no liens or warrants for seizure, Hell no!
To go further, those “squatter’s rights” riff-raff from this Marxist bunch called The New School remind me that this phenomenon is every bit like scenes out of the movie Doctor Zhivago:
And it’s dangerous even if you are simply a neighbor or a legitimate tenant with a real lease. Nobody knows who these squatters are or what their criminal background is or what there intentions are regarding anyone around them.
One day, so-called “squatter’s rights” are going to intersect with Castle Doctrine and somebody is going to get their ass shot.
Enco, read about adverse possession. It is English in origin and dates back to 1600 or so. It really is contrary to our sensibilities. Or is it further back from the 14th century during the plague years? That would make for a good story. I can’t remember and i aint looking it up. But it is like legal theft.
In usa states have statutes that govern the legal requirements of attaining or ‘stealing’ another’s real estate. I think some states require the squatters to pay real estate taxes while the statutory squatting is pending. And i think there is always the requirement of doing so in an open and hostile manner. You can’t hole up and hide and gain title to the real estate..
Can our capacity for moral reasoning be strengthened.
My moral reasoning has definitely been strengthened a lot as I have got older. I don’t know whether it’s experience, or learning about theory, or both.
What has made it get better are two or three things: more compassion, more (cognitive) empathy – figuring out what is going on with someone else, and why – and giving a shit in the first place – and more impartiality. In fact impartiality is something I see in morally advanced people everywhere. The compassion and cognitive empathy seem to go along with that.
Someone in the comments said no one moral value is “better” than any other, which is a valid point I think, in that the best one would have to be the yardstick for all the others. However, that misses the point. The point is to get better at applying any principles at all. The other point is, what is the overall goal? Is it patriarchy, or mutual benefit? Which would you prefer?
@simon – My moral reasoning has definitely been strengthened a lot as I have got older.
Aging in and of itself does not raise ones moral standards. Thinking about morality does. The more you think about life and the more you ponder various scenarios that require a moral response, the higher your standards will become. If you are constrained by religious doctrine then, no matter you age, your moral code remains static especially if you just swallow it in ‘tablet form’ without ever thinking about it.
I might revise this later as I am listening to La Grange at volume 11.
If you are constrained by religious doctrine then, no matter you age, your moral code remains static especially if you just swallow it in ‘tablet form’ without ever thinking about it.
I do think that religious people think about these things all day long, and they’re bound to make progress of some kind. Religious morality is rooted in natural morality. But they have some strange concerns which distort things, and perhaps it’s difficult for them to change their minds on pain of being called “demonic” or something.
Simon Paynton 10 months ago.
