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.
So return the land you claim (if you’re really in Pennsylvania). Do I misremember that your Chain of theft goes back to George III of England? Do you not know where to find the current monarch of England?
“though if you're pansy enough”
“you were an ign'ant hillbilly”
Who is it that’s made the most accusations about ad hominems on this thread?
“Luckily, that more rational majority will resort to arbitration,”
You’re the one who keeps defaulting to violence, shooting and so forth because of definitions others have not agreed to.
“lack of a government implies that the world turns into the "Wild Wild West"”
Nonsense and once again an attribution to me of a position that I did not take. People can get along perfectly well without a government, in some circumstances at least.
“ it was also surprisingly peaceful and civilised.”
Because the people mutually agreed as to how to interact with each other. They had something like what I would call a social contract, something you will not acknowledge and I think you won’t do so because it means you don’t get to make all the rules and set all the terms to suit yourself and the heck with everybody else. (Can you spell “socielpath” ? Ign'ant hillbillies don’t know how to spell them there kinda werds.) By the way, anybody reading your posts on this thread, might conclude that in the Old West or any similar society you’d either straighten up or cause need for the “He needed Killing” defense.
“I make no rules, terms or conditions,…”
Who’s been posting in your name?
“You keep trying to apply the argument against social contracts, and use it against the existence of property rights themselves.”
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect. You have no right to attribute that position to me. I am not trying to do what you write I’m trying to do. We can’t even get to an intelligent discussion of property rights because you can’t get over the delusion of grandeur that allows you to think things have to go your way and everybody else can go hang. You have shown me no foundation. You demonstrate to me no understanding. And IMEO I’d have to say your reading comprehension sucks.