Exarchia - It has begun

[Thermal]

Like I said, I fully support you on this one. Go forth and be-penis your local Greek consulate!

And if you find some things lame then there are always other options, such as firebombing your local Greek consulate.

From eleven years ago (byline 2008)?

Or firebombing your national riot police HQ for that matter.

Comments dating from 12 years ago. We sure this shouldn't be in the history subforum?

Don't forget to report back and let us know how it went. Until then, I'm going with the principle that actual events in the real world are more interesting than things that only exist in your imagination.

If we are going back in terms of decades, oh I have dicks and urine property right assertions galore. My neighbors workers are in reality getting a different tact (drawing the metaphorical dick would not express anything with the current workers}.

So back to my honest question about asserting property rights. I wondered if the squats are invoking actual Squatters rights, based on the time they have been there. In some places, 'peaceful uncontested residence' actually constitutes a legal squatting claim. Don't know if Greece has such legal provisions.

See, that's not obsession. It's an on-topic query for honest discussion of the standings in the conflict, as was my question about the K*Vox paper owner's possible sympathies.

 

[Thermal]

Pissing people off is easy though. What's hard is pissing off the right people (ie those in power) in the right way (so that you get to keep your squats). And even a speck of paint thrown at a consulate in Italy helps infinitely more with that than you pissing in your neighbour's mailbox, assuming that's even actually true rather than just another thing that only exists in your imagination such as your brother-in-law having to physically fight of squatters in his home.

Not brother in law. Buddy.

And what I asked you was your take on bourgeois property ownership. You refer to fat rich guys being gentrifying landlords. I wonder if my buddy was the sort you envision. If his property was randomly squatted, should he be forced to fight a bunch of bums for it?

In other words, is it the non-working property owners (rich fat cats) that you object to, or any property owner? This was prompted by the cartoon you posted of a bunch of guys saying they would fight the top-hatted and monocled owner for it. Is that a universal property challenge, or just for what we might call the overfed abusers of property?

 

[caveman1917]

From eleven years ago (byline 2008)?
Comments dating from 12 years ago. We sure this shouldn't be in the history subforum?

So back to my honest question about asserting property rights.

To which you were given an honest answer.

I wondered if the squats are invoking actual Squatters rights, based on the time they have been there. In some places, 'peaceful uncontested residence' actually constitutes a legal squatting claim. Don't know if Greece has such legal provisions.

No idea whether Greece has such legal provisions. They are clearly invoking actual property rights though, since they actually still have the 19 remaining squats, and are actually asserting their rights to it (for example here).

You see, your problem is that you have the notion of "actual" and "imaginary" rights mixed up. Which usually isn't so much of a problem, were it not that the only way you can mix these up is if the State is capable of enforcing those ideas on the actual world. Which is, of course, exactly what's being contested here. To put it differently: This is Exarchia, your law means nothing here

See, that's not obsession. It's an on-topic query for honest discussion of the standings in the conflict, as was my question about the K*Vox paper owner's possible sympathies.

I've been reporting on the standings in the conflict. You know, the actual conflict in the real world, not one that only exists in your imagination.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, this is what I thought: you can legally claim squatter's rights to property in Greece:

https://www.athensguide.com/dorian/squatting-property.htm

So have the K*Vox crew and others maintained the conditions? Can they actually have a legal claim, which beats the state at their own game?

 

[caveman1917]

Not brother in law. Buddy.

And what I asked you was your take on bourgeois property ownership.

My take on property is that the world is mine. YMMV

You refer to fat rich guys being gentrifying landlords. I wonder if my buddy was the sort you envision. If his property was randomly squatted, should he be forced to fight a bunch of bums for it?

His property didn't get randomly squatted though, did it? Again just random things you make up in your imagination.

In other words, is it the non-working property owners (rich fat cats) that you object to, or any property owner? This was prompted by the cartoon you posted of a bunch of guys saying they would fight the top-hatted and monocled owner for it. Is that a universal property challenge, or just for what we might call the overfed abusers of property?

Does it matter? What you're missing is: Suppose it were a universal property challenge, who do you think would get their property challenged? The landlord with hundreds of premises they don't use or some random working class person's home? Think it through, and realize why your imaginary scenarios are pointless. Look at the real world rather than making up imaginary scenarios, what exactly are the buildings occupied in Exarchia?

 

[caveman1917]

Yeah, this is what I thought: you can legally claim squatter's rights to property in Greece:

https://www.athensguide.com/dorian/squatting-property.htm

So have the K*Vox crew and others maintained the conditions? Can they actually have a legal claim, which beats the state at their own game?

Don't know, feel free to find out and report back with your findings. In the meantime, letting the state win (allowing it to enforce its laws) does not constitute beating it at its own game.

 

[Thermal]

... They are clearly invoking actual property rights though, since they actually still have the 19 remaining squats, and are actually asserting their rights to it (for example here).

Back to the word games, I see. Fighting with MAT is not asserting anything. Its just fighting. Which is fine. But if MAT decides to drop the hammer, they will win. I'm wondering if the squatters could actually legally win, and have their claim uncontested. Beat the state at it's own game. Do you know if the Exarchia crew has representatives negotiating with the state in any capacity other than spray painting? Serious question.

You see, your problem is that you have the notion of "actual" and "imaginary" rights mixed up. Which usually isn't so much of a problem, were it not that the only way you can mix these up is if the State is capable of enforcing those ideas on the actual world. Which is, of course, exactly what's being contested here. To put it differently: This is Exarchia, your law means nothing here

I'll bet you that case of beer you mentioned that Greek law will mean a lot if the state so wishes. From the looks of things, they are just pawing around (good deal, that). Curious to see what happens if the State gets pissed.

I've been reporting on the standings in the conflict. You know, the actual conflict in the real world, not one that only exists in your imagination.

Asking you about a political/social philosophy which you posted to expand on is hardly imagination. Well, your concept of who is holding the cards is a little imaginary. I take it to mean you can not or will not elaborate on the subject you brought up?

 

[caveman1917]

Back to the word games, I see. Fighting with MAT is not asserting anything. Its just fighting.

It is asserting a lot of things.

But if MAT decides to drop the hammer, they will win.

Thank you Captain Obvious. It doesn't just have to be MAT, for example the air force could easily bomb the neighbourhood into oblivion in a few minutes. The question is, of course, whether the state considers the gain enough for what it will cost them in response. How many embassies, cops in hospital, and bombed banks, party offices, etc is a couple of squats worth anyway?

I'm wondering if the squatters could actually legally win, and have their claim uncontested. Beat the state at it's own game.

Given that the state is the one writing and enforcing this "legality" you speak of, submitting to it doesn't constitute beating the state, now does it?

Do you know if the Exarchia crew has representatives negotiating with the state in any capacity other than spray painting? Serious question.

I don't know but I don't think so.

I'll bet you that case of beer you mentioned that Greek law will mean a lot if the state so wishes. From the looks of things, they are just pawing around (good deal, that). Curious to see what happens if the State gets pissed.

Oh they're pretty pissed off already, the head of government has been publicly humiliated about his whole "cleaning up Exarchia in a month" show.

Asking you about a political/social philosophy which you posted to expand on is hardly imagination. Well, your concept of who is holding the cards is a little imaginary. I take it to mean you can not or will not elaborate on the subject you brought up?

In that case, the answer to your hypothetical is: Whichever is in my interest.

 

[Thermal]

My take on property is that the world is mine. YMMV



His property didn't get randomly squatted though, did it? Again just random things you make up in your imagination.



Does it matter? What you're missing is: Suppose it were a universal property challenge, who do you think would get their property challenged? The landlord with hundreds of premises they don't use or some random working class person's home? Think it through, and realize why your imaginary scenarios are pointless

*rubs temples*

I don't know who would get their property challenged, or on what grounds. You present this as some simplistic comic book scenario. I'm trying to sort out what you are advocating.

If the claim is universal, you are declaring pretty much everyone to be your enemy. No bueno. If you are endorsing an anti-1% POV, the field is more understandable. But you are going back and forth. The hypotheticals are simply posed to get a straight answer out of you.

Look at the real world rather than making up imaginary scenarios, what exactly are the buildings occupied in Exarchia?

Not sure. That's why I asked about the paper owners there. Have they in essence abandoned the properties? How long ago? The squatters may be in full legal ownership here and now, which puts the state in a powerfully bad position with the law they in theory support.

 

[caveman1917]

*rubs temples*

I don't know who would get their property challenged, or on what grounds. You present this as some simplistic comic book scenario. I'm trying to sort out what you are advocating.

I'm not really advocating much of anything, I'm reporting a sequence of events. If anything, I suppose I'm advocating for my own interest.

If the claim is universal, you are declaring pretty much everyone to be your enemy. No bueno. If you are endorsing an anti-1% POV, the field is more understandable. But you are going back and forth. The hypotheticals are simply posed to get a straight answer out of you.

Well you got a straight answer: The answer to your hypothetical is whatever answer is in my interest. Since you refused to provide more details about your hypothetical it remains to be seen which answer that is.

Not sure. That's why I asked about the paper owners there. Have they in essence abandoned the properties? How long ago? The squatters may be in full legal ownership here and now, which puts the state in a powerfully bad position with the law they in theory support.

Does it matter? The K*Vox owner refused to file a complaint so the state made up some excuse to force entry anyway.

 

[Thermal]

It is asserting a lot of things.

Metaphorically, perhaps. In practice, it's poking the bear.

Thank you Captain Obvious. It doesn't just have to be MAT, for example the air force could easily bomb the neighbourhood into oblivion in a few minutes. The question is, of course, whether the state considers the gain enough for what it will cost them in response. How many embassies, cops in hospital, and bombed banks, party offices, etc is a couple of squats worth anyway?

I doubt this is about a couple of squats, nor has it ever been. It's about power and submission.

Given that the state is the one writing and enforcing this "legality" you speak of, submitting to it doesn't constitute beating the state, now does it?

Sure it would. Is Greece a dictatorship, or do its laws come by representative consent of the governed?

In that case, the answer to your hypothetical is: Whichever is in my interest.

Now we are getting somewhere. Pulling teeth with you, for gods sake.

So law is whatever you want at the time that suits you? Seems to require a huge leap of faith in your good will. If you got up on the wrong side of the bed, that would mean my family could be in danger of you asserting property rights on, say, my daughter. So why would anyone advocate such a philosophy? You are basically saying 'you know what? Let's just go Mad Max. Trust me, it will work out great. Just don't piss me off'.

Do you seriously not see why us normies could not possibly endorse this, and by extension sympathize with the squats?

 

[sackett]

The Exarchioids* sound, at least in Cave's mouth, like a gaggle of Sov Cits in an ugly mood.

* See? I can use Greek derivative endings. The world is mine, after all. Muh!

 

[caveman1917]

Metaphorically, perhaps. In practice, it's poking the bear.

The same is equally true the other way around.

Sure it would. Is Greece a dictatorship, or do its laws come by representative consent of the governed?

It is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, like other capitalist states. Its laws clearly don't have consent of those it tries to govern in Exarchia.

Now we are getting somewhere. Pulling teeth with you, for gods sake.

So law is whatever you want at the time that suits you? Seems to require a huge leap of faith in your good will. If you got up on the wrong side of the bed, that would mean my family could be in danger of you asserting property rights on, say, my daughter. So why would anyone advocate such a philosophy? You are basically saying 'you know what? Let's just go Mad Max. Trust me, it will work out great. Just don't piss me off'.

You understand this says a lot more about you than it does about me, right? "Those anarchists, if they don't have the state and its laws holding them back then what's stopping them from doing [insert bad thing X]" is no different from
"Those atheists, if they don't have fear of god holding them back then what's stopping them from doing [insert bad thing X]". I get that you think that you're intelligently refuting some philosophical position, but all you're really doing is just telling us about yourself. Is this why you refuse to use actual real-world observations but stick to arbitrary imaginary scenarios you're making up?

Do you seriously not see why us normies could not possibly endorse this, and by extension sympathize with the squats?

I find it interesting that you can not sympathize with squats where refugees find sanctuary and safe haven in a neighbourhood, thinking they should be thrown into concentration camps instead, for no other reason than that you manage to scare yourself with completely imaginary scenarios that you're just making up as you go.

 

[Thermal]

It is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, like other capitalist states. Its laws clearly don't have consent of those it tries to govern in Exarchia.

Seriously? That is what this boils down to? Laws are not valid unless they cater to each and every individual's wishes?

You understand this says a lot more about you than it does about me, right? "Those anarchists, if they don't have the state and its laws holding them back then what's stopping them from doing [insert bad thing X]" is no different from
"Those atheists, if they don't have fear of god holding them back then what's stopping them from doing [insert bad thing X]". I get that you think that you're intelligently refuting some philosophical position, but all you're really doing is just telling us about yourself. Is this why you refuse to use actual real-world observations but stick to arbitrary imaginary scenarios you're making up?

Ummmm...no. You say that you honor whatever interpretation suits you at the time. That's not even anarchy.

eta: and if either religious dudes or anarchists or who ******* ever said that their code is 'whatever suits their interests at the time', my ass ain't trusting them. That's the rationality of the sociopath

And I am only posing hypotheticals (I think only 2) because you are being as coy as a flirty girl. Knock it off. Por favor.

The real world scenarios can only be evaluated in hindsight. To understand what your philosophy entails, you have to speculate based on what it suggests. You say 'whatever suits your interests'. Do I have that right? Are there any other restrictions on this, or is it pretty much you will do what you want? I mean, sociopathy FTW and all, but seriously: how can you expect nyone else to get on board if that is your selling point?

I find it interesting that you can not sympathize with squats where refugees find sanctuary and safe haven in a neighbourhood, thinking they should be thrown into concentration camps instead, for no other reason than that you manage to scare yourself with completely imaginary scenarios that you're just making up as you go.

Bull. I said from my first post that providing shelter for refugees was laudable. And double bull, because I do sympathize with squatters. What I don't sympathize with is your proxy sociopolitical structure. It can't even work in theory. So I am borderline begging you to fill in the details. Going to bat your eyelashes around some more, or get on with it?

 

[caveman1917]

Seriously? That is what this boils down to? Laws are not valid unless they cater to each and every individual's wishes?

What does it mean for a law to be "valid"? You asked where the power to create laws comes from in Greece and about consent by the people the state tries to govern, I answered.

The real world scenarios can only be evaluated in hindsight.

Of course not, you can check which buildings are squatted in Exarchia right now. You just don't like real world observations because they don't align with your hypotheticals. How many points was it again for using the results of a thought experiment which contradicts the results of a real experiment?

To understand what your philosophy entails, you have to speculate based on what it suggests. You say 'whatever suits your interests'. Do I have that right? Are there any other restrictions on this, or is it pretty much you will do what you want? I mean, sociopathy FTW and all, but seriously: how can you expect nyone else to get on board if that is your selling point?

Wait, other people are against acting in their own self-interest?

Me: "Hey guys, I think it would be in my interest to get some more paid holiday, let's go on strike!"

Coworkers: "No! More paid holiday would also be in our interest, and we are against acting in our own self-interest!"

Bull. I said from my first post that providing shelter for refugees was laudable. And double bull, because I do sympathize with squatters. What I don't sympathize with is your proxy sociopolitical structure. It can't even work in theory. So I am borderline begging you to fill in the details. Going to bat your eyelashes around some more, or get on with it?

What details would you need filled in? And you did say that you couldn't sympathize with the squats because some random dude on the internet (aka me) talked to you about some anarchist philosophy (not even the 'mainstream' anarchist philosophy at that).

 

[Thermal]

What does it mean for a law to be "valid"? You asked where the power to create laws comes from in Greece and about consent by the people the state tries to govern, I answered.

You left out 'collectively' though, and tried to slide it over to 'this handful of people'. Laws apply to everyone in the society. Exarchia elects to be in the society. Can't really punk out on complying with the rules if you are in someone else's crib.

Of course not, you can check which buildings are squatted in Exarchia right now. You just don't like real world observations because they don't align with your hypotheticals. How many points was it again for using the results of thought experiment which contradicts the results of a real experiment?

...wut?

The real world scenarios have not played out yet, so we cannot test or even consider them. We can only see what has happened thus far, and that is in heavy flux. What happens next is anybody's guess. What will the squatters do? Who knows, lacking a coherent philosophy?

Wait, other people are against acting in their own self-interest?

Me: "Hey guys, I think it would be in my interest to get some more paid holiday, let's go on strike!"

Coworkers: "No! More paid holiday would also be in our interest, and we are against acting in our own self-interest!"

To mimic what you said upthread, this says more about you. You are single, no kids. Yes, I think altruism is a thing. Most of what I do is directly for the benefit of others (arguably, doing for others to satisfy my sense of duty). I haven't even been in the top five for a long time. And those strawmen do not serve your argument. No one is arguing for austerity.

What details would you need filled in? And you did say that you couldn't sympathize with the squats because some random dude on the internet (aka me) talked to you about some anarchist philosophy (not even the 'mainstream' anarchist philosophy at that).

Whhh...what?

I do sympathize with the squats. If they have been left alone since the '80s, they are established freaking generationally by now. Seems an odd delay for the state to suddenly enforce trespass, so I question the motives. I would very much like to know if they are appointing representatives to negotiate (the smart move), or are just going to 'assert property rights' and let down those they are sheltering with childish bravado.

 

[caveman1917]

Laws apply to everyone in the society. Exarchia elects to be in the society. Can't really punk out on complying with the rules if you are in someone else's crib.

Interesting that out of 3 statements you managed to make 3 false ones.

I do sympathize with the squats. If they have been left alone since the '80s, they are established freaking generationally by now.

They haven't been left alone, they've merely been victorious every time up until now - and it seems they may be again.

Seems an odd delay for the state to suddenly enforce trespass, so I question the motives. I would very much like to know if they are appointing representatives to negotiate (the smart move), or are just going to 'assert property rights' and let down those they are sheltering with childish bravado.

What do you mean "let down those they are sheltering"? You understand that the squat, as in the actual building, is an inanimate object right? It can not "let down" those being sheltered because those being sheltered constitute the decision making of the squat, the squats are self-managed. And if you want to know something, you can easily contact them via social media and ask. For example here is the facebook page of Spirou Trikoupi 17, or here for the K*Vox, feel free to go tell them they got it all wrong with that "resistance" thing and they should negotiate their surrender to the state instead because you, some random dude on the internet whose biggest achievement is urinating in someone's mailbox, says so. If anything is childish it is the extent of your intellectual faculties.

 

[Thermal]

Interesting that out of 3 statements you managed to make 3 false ones.



They haven't been left alone, they've merely been victorious every time up until now - and it seems they may be again.



What do you mean "let down those they are sheltering"? You understand that the squat, as in the actual building, is an inanimate object right? It can not "let down" those being sheltered because those being sheltered constitute the decision making of the squat, the squats are self-managed. And if you want to know something, you can easily contact them via social media and ask. For example here is the facebook page of Spirou Trikoupi 17, or here for the K*Vox, feel free to go tell them they got it all wrong with that "resistance" thing and they should negotiate their surrender to the state instead.

How many times do I have to say this? They should not surrender, especially if they have a legit claim. They should, if they are smart, talk with the paper owners who seem to not give a fat rat's ass about the properties being squatted and work out who actually has rights there.

And hey, mainstream normie: I don't facebook. My mother in law does.

eta: your edit: urinating in mailboxes is not in my top ten list of achievements. But I expect it falls in with your concept of property rights, n'est ce pas?

And keep cranking on with the 'I'm totes a rebel in mom's basement' pose you seem to so relish. I have tried to discuss this quite a few times in good faith, but I think we can agree it's not happening? See ya on the next one

 

[caveman1917]

How many times do I have to say this? They should not surrender, especially if they have a legit claim. They should, if they are smart, talk with the paper owners who seem to not give a fat rat's ass about the properties being squatted and work out who actually has rights there.

Well I don't think they will agree to surrender to the state (ie to submit to being ruled by its law) but you're free to go and tell them about your idea. As to the highlighted, you misspelled "dimwitted."

And hey, mainstream normie: I don't facebook. My mother in law does.

You can easily find plenty of other ways to message them with your proposal. Let us know what response you got.

 

[caveman1917]

eta: your edit: urinating in mailboxes is not in my top ten list of achievements. But I expect it falls in with your concept of property rights, n'est ce pas?

It does, but as I said it's off-topic.

And keep cranking on with the 'I'm totes a rebel in mom's basement' pose you seem to so relish.

I'll note that you have only childish ad hominems left. And I'm not particularly interested in these poses of yours, I'm more interested in the real world, so I'll just refer you back to this.

I have tried to discuss this quite a few times in good faith, but I think we can agree it's not happening? See ya on the next one

If you find it so important to discuss this, I provided you with the contact details of the squats, feel free to discuss your ideas with them and report back on your findings.

ETA: Here you find the rules for journalists for Notara 26 (one of the squats). I don't know about the other squats but it'll probably be similar.

We have a lot of trouble getting across to them that in order to get the opportunity to interview us, you have to apply in advance, giving all the necessary details, and then wait for the decision of Notara 26 assembly. And if the answer is no, it must be respected.