It has been difficult, but educational (we're never too old to learn).

For some reason I cannot reply directly to Hive account@pharesim's response below, but the supposed "solution" of taking a home simply because it isn't being lived in by the owner currently is just warmed over communist-style socialism, which has never proved workable economically (Russia and China are two major examples of the past century).

Say that a businessman, who worked hard to salt away a few shekels, decides to go on a business trip while paying others to look after his home. Should his return be delayed by unforeseen business difficulties, at which point would he be forced to find a new home and personal property to replace that taken over by squatters during his absence?

One month, one year, or immediately? Sorry, but I don't see the difference between what the anarchists are proposing and state confiscation of homes for unpaid (even unconstitutional) property taxes.

Private mortgages are not the problem, unless their interest rates are in the usurious range, based on voluntary contracts. Banks that claim to make such loans, but which actually only trade the borrowers promissory note (a claim against his future earnings) to investors while putting nothing of their own considerable assets at risk in the transaction -- like modern-day money changers -- but later use this document they no longer hold as a claim against the property or other collateral pledged against default in paying the so-called "loan," are part of the real social problems we should be addressing (fraud in the courts, banking institutions, and corporate businesses that profit from such fraud, as a result).