[annalex]

Ownership of property has nothing to do with the ability to move it. Of course real property is property that can be owned just like any moveable possession.

Registry of deeds doesn't have to be a function of government. Since in modern times a government is always around, it becomes a convenient registrar, but it doesn't have to be this way. In order to defend a title to the property any unambiguous and credible evidence would do; it could be documentation kept by a private party or simply fences, monuments and other artifacts traceable to the owner present on the property itself.

In any event, the need for a registry doesn't translate into a need for a national in scope government setting restriction on foreign ownership.

[Demidog]

You are only thinking of part of the problem. The other part of the equation is defense. You can never own land. I'm sorry that this is one of those times where we'll never agree because I enjoy arguing with you. You are polite, well spoken and thoughtful. But this is a religious issue.

There is no land ownership. It is an illusion. It's pretend. It's not something you can find in nature.

Thus, if you're going to play a pretend game, you need a government so that you're "rights" to that land can be protected.

The fact that real property is not something found in nature, means that it really isn't a right. It is something that can only be born from an agreement that is made between all of the inhabitants of a territory. It is an invention of the mind.