Opening my browser today, I came across a Yahoo! News/AP headline about a Dutch crackdown on squatting which has just been outlawed by authorities in Amsterdam, and, of course, an article regarding the resulting protests squatters plan to make. This thread, though, is not about squatting (I lived in a semi-illegal apartment in Paris, myself, though we paid rent) so much as the phrasing in the second paragraph: On Friday, the once-respected Dutch tradition of squatting becomes illegal. It is the latest pillar of the country's liberal institutions such as legal prostitution and cafes that openly sell marijuana to be abolished or curtailed as the Dutch become more conservative and rethink the boundaries of their famed tolerance. First of all, I really don't see the connection between squatting (which ignores/disregards the property rights of the owners of the buildings in question) and any form of liberalism that I've ever heard of: it's much more of an Anarchist thing, and Anarchism and Communism are the only political philosophies I can think of off the top of my head that don't recognize the supremacy of property rights. Calling it "liberal" is pretty much like saying "vermilion" when you mean "sapphire". Then the paragraph goes on to equate both legalized prostitution and the sale of marijuana with squatting, and all of them as being anti-conservative. Now, I understand that I read the article through a lens of understanding American politics, not Dutch, and that there are bound to be differences in nuance between words. But wouldn't the hands-off approach regarding such victimless "crimes" as legalized prostitution and the consumption of weed be seen as libertarian? How can the curtailment of individual freedom be called conservative by the American AP? Am I the only one to see a disconnect?