Why do anarchists defend squats, instead of opening new ones?

Question

It seem that if a squat had enough people they could easily leave and set up a new squat, without getting arrested over something they can't stop

Comments

Dot's answer sum it all up nicely. However, I wanted to comment on your fatalism. Its a pretty sad argument that if you can't win you shouldn't try; it necessitates the assumption that the winners and losers are chosen before either has a chance to prove themselves and the assumption that winning (the end) is all that matters (rather than the act, the means).

Squatting, as it is known to the political and punk scenes, is about setting up alternative spaces that by their existence are antagonistic to the norm and the powers that be. If that is the very intent, or atleast an underlying foundation of a squat it would be out of character to buckle at the idea of conflict. Having a squat is often just as much about conflictually holding space (passively or actively) as it is about physically possessing a space to utilize.

Answer 1

people have stopped squat eviction - sometimes for a long time, like years.
from wikipedia on squatting (there's more there if you're interested)
"Christiania is an independent community of almost 900 people founded in 1971 on the site of an abandoned military zone. In Copenhagen, as in other European cities such as Berlin and Amsterdam, the squatter movement was large in the 1980s. It was a social movement, providing housing and alternative culture. A flashpoint came in 1986 with the Battle of Ryesgade. Another flashpoint came in 2007 when Ungdomshuset was evicted. While not technically a squat until 14 December 2006, it was a social center used by squatters and people involved in alternative culture more generally."

but also - people put a lot of time and energy into their squats sometimes, so that they're worth defending.
also, people get fed up of just ceding ground do the enemy. sometimes it just feels better to fight back.