• thesmokingman@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood entitlement here. Squatter’s rights, for example, are an immediate counter to your lack of ambiguity. The securities system is built around not paying for things to get things, as are most subsidies. There’s a way to do all of that correctly, which most sovcits don’t understand.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      You should go onto a sovcit forum and explain that yes, they can get things for free and that they’re just all doing it wrong.

      • thesmokingman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        By your own telling, you can get things for free if you’re large enough or have enough capital. Sounds like you’re right there with me!

        • Windex007@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          No, I would be telling the sovcits that just because their services aren’t immediately cut off after a failure to pay, does not mean that they don’t eventually have to pay, and that if they don’t pay, their creditors will at the very least suspend the services, and almost certainly seek to collect the debt. Because that’s how it actually works. Both for individuals or corporations.

          • thesmokingman@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            There sure are a lot of buildings, a lot trades, a bunch of water, and, best example, a few sovereign nations on US soil that would disagree with you.

            I get that you think the rule of law matters. It doesn’t when you can afford the right lawyers or the right politicians. Sovcits are still crazy. It’s okay.

            • Windex007@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              I’m not debating whether or not people get fucked in deals, or if parties ever stop paying for things.

              When it’s an ongoing agreement, like a phone bill, a credit card, or rent, of course you can stop paying your bills. Millions of people do this every day. The question is “Can I force the other party to keep providing me the service that I stopped paying for?”

              • thesmokingman@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                You have yet to address any of the examples I’ve given you, including the one that’s very legal. Squatter’s rights are literally forcing someone to provide a service without paying for that service. You keep trying to move the goalposts; there just isn’t a way for you to not be wrong here.

                • Windex007@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Squatters rights just means that they need to be evicted, rather than the usual recourse for run-of-the-mill trespassers. The service still stops, there are just some legal provisions around how the service stops.

                  You might be referring to “adverse possession”, which realistically only happens in cases of abandonment of a property… Or an extremely generous landlord who decided to not evict a squatter for a minimum of 5 years.

                  If you think that this generally satisfies your position that, generally speaking, you don’t have to pay your bills and you can just keep getting stuff, then I concede. Not because I think you’re right, but because we’re so incredibly far apart on the issue of “are things secretly free?” That I don’t realistically think we can close the gap.

                  • thesmokingman@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    If we set aside that specific law, which I will grant you is widely different across many jurisdictions (where I live it’s much less than five years, sorry bud), you still have all the other things both legal and extralegal that prove you wrong. The US itself is based on not honoring legal agreements which is the crux of your argument. If you want to talk precedence somewhere else, you still have the extralegal shit which still gets you things for free even if it’s not legal. We also haven’t even mentioned the famous monkey wrench argument.

                    With the right circumstances, things are secretly free. Your naïveté or willful ignorance or both has ceased being interesting because your only response has been “go talk to the sovcits you’re not entitled to things.”