In nature, one who wants what another has just takes it if possible. Remember your “Chain of theft”?
“Property rights are inalieneable.”
Shouldn’t you return whatever property you obtained as a benefit of your Chain of theft?
“If you don't like that, then you'll have to learn the hard way. I'll explain to your heirs that it was self-defense, and they'll accept it, sorrowing. “
Who wrote “Force is not involved”? (“Force is not involved” was a cut and paste from whoever posted it.)
And in the unlikely event you prevail, my heirs may sorrow but they won’t accept it. You will have initiated “Blood Feud” (at least in your fantasy and maybe reality too). The best you’ll be able to do is stay hidden somewhere on the pitiful plot you claim, perhaps scurrying out at night to resupply. That is the world of your vision.
“You're confusing the "Bill of Rights”…”
Your comments have no relevance to what I said since the ability I noted could be used 9800 years before the “Bill Of Rights” or tomorrow.
“…you own it…”
And ownership of something can change. You don’t have to sell it or anything; it can even be stolen from you.
“Or were you just making a cheap ad hominem when you brought up "slavery"?”
With all seriousness I absolutely in no way intended an ad hominem. It didn’t even occur to me that you might take it that way. I just wanted to point out the inherent contradiction in the statement “one's self is one's property,” and prompt you to think about that. You obviously have.
But you still threw in some assumptions to which I have to reply that I fail to recognize the validity of you making all the rules, setting terms and conditions, then declaring that I have agreed to an implicit contract you contrived for your own convenience when I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with the blanket terms you are trying to force on me, and you threaten me with violence for not meeting an obligation to which I did not commit to when all the while you refuse to acknowledge you have any obligation under the social contract because you did not agree to it in the same way that I did not agree to your unilateral ravings. You can’t have it both ways.
This too has already been covered; your amnesia is in full force again. Oh well, I'll repeat the answer.
The answer is yes. An illegitimate owner cannot pass title; the legitimate owner can and does pass title to that which was stolen from him. If someone can demonstrate that he is heir to the property I occupy, and that my presumed title is in fact illegitimate, then my property properly belongs to him and not me.
Until and unless the rightful owner shows up and proves his claim, however, I am acting in good faith in supposing that I received my land by legitimate transfer of title.
The implication for the USA is that most land will not be reclaimed. In some cases the rightful owners are all dead. In other cases, the land was in fact unowned--native Americans did not occupy the entirety of the continent. In other cases, the rightful owner may or may not be alive today, but he doesn't know he is, or else he knows he is but can't prove it.
Any Indian who can prove rightful title, and any descendant of slaves likewise, is completely entitled to what is his, with interest as applicable.
And in the unlikely event you prevail, my heirs may sorrow but they won’t accept it. You will have initiated “Blood Feud."
Interesting. I didn't know you were an ign'ant hillbilly. I've rarely met any of those, though I have seen "Deliverance." Most people are too rational to go to war when they know that whoever they're avenging had it coming, for example because he was caught in the act of committing a crime such as theft or trespassing.
Luckily, that more rational majority will resort to arbitration, or will defer the matter to their defense agency which, being far too cost-conscious to get into shooting wars lightly, would negotiate a settlement with my defense agency, payable through their respective insurers.
The best you’ll be able to do is stay hidden somewhere on the pitiful plot you claim, perhaps scurrying out at night to resupply. That is the world of your vision.
Finally you articulate the real issue as you see it: lack of a government implies that the world turns into the "Wild Wild West" in which everyone is shooting everyone. You're mistaken, however: the "Wild Wild West" you picture existed only in the movies. The west was essentially anarchistic at first, and it was also surprisingly peaceful and civilised.
And ownership of something can change. You don’t have to sell it or anything; it can even be stolen from you.
You mean a thief owns what he stole? Um, no. You have a strange notion of "ownership".
But you still threw in some assumptions to which I have to reply that I fail to recognize the validity of you making all the rules, setting terms and conditions...
I make no rules, terms or conditions, except one: touch my person or my stuff, and you'll face the grim consequences. Further, I'll point out that I expect no less from you--though if you're pansy enough not to defend your self and property, that isn't really my problem.
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with the blanket terms you are trying to force on me...
You keep trying to apply the argument against social contracts, and use it against the existence of property rights themselves. The argument doesn't work. You are trying to say that before my property truly becomes mine--before I have the right to defend it--you must admit that it's mine by signing a contract to that effect. Naturally, everyone else on earth must also sign such a contract, since your signing would only mean that you admit that I have the right to self-defense.
The reality is that I have the right to self defense, just as you do, and neither of us has to ask anyone to validate that right. It simply is. It has been practiced since the first rodent-like placental mammal snarled at another rodent-like placental mammal when it tried to take food away from the first rodent-like placental mammal.
Man's rational mind contributes something extra, however. As recently as, oh, today, apes as primitive as oh, say, homo sapiens sapiens has willingly violated the property rights of others when they had enough force to get away with it. Thanks to the power of reason, we can deduce that everyone's property rights are equally sacrosanct. If you reject that deduction, then by all means invade my property. Go ahead, I dare you.