No. As I said previously. I may never recognize your right to own it. But unless I have allies (police, neighbors, government) that agree with me and will act accordingly you will indeed own that car and be recognized as the owner by everyone else.So if I steal your car, you will recognize me as its rightful owner? Where do you keep it? ;-)
When the thief is all powerful they will not be challenged, their power establishes their ownership.
Example: The US government regularly steals cars and money from people who may have been involved in drug related activity. If the owner loaned his car to a friend who used it to haul drugs that owner will lose his car forever. The cars and cash are taken without due process. No trial, no jury, no charges, no proof of guilt. No protection of rights. Might makes law.
Israeli individuals are the rightful owners of their land, not because they expelled the previous owners and some "law" of the jungle grants it to them, but because, in most cases, they were the first ones to claim ownership of the land, which had been barren and uninhabited before.
"First possession" is a thoroughly discredited and naive concept. All property today has been acquired through war. The rights of the precedent owners (Indians, English, Mexicans etc) have been replaced by the rights of the conquerers (American citizens)..
The inalienable rights of each individual to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are universal law. The Founders held these truths
self-evident. These inalienable rights may be--and all too often are--violated, which prevents the individual from enjoying them, but does not take the rights away.
No. Inalienable rights are not universal law. Laws are things enforced by a government of people. Rights supercede laws. However those rights can be protected by law or they can be completely trampled by law. Saddam Hussein had laws but few believe they protected the universal rights of the people.
Guns do not make rights, but guns do make law.
In the US everday someone's universal right to own property is denied when the big guns (government) apply the laws of eminent domain, for instance.
For example, your car may be stolen, which prevents you from enjoying your right to own it, but does not stop you from being the car's rightful owner. You do not commit a crime when you take your car back from the thief.
If you take your car back by force from the police agency which confiscated it without due process you will have committed a crime, and go to jail.
It must be made clear that we cannot confuse "rights" with "law".
God gives us rights, but man makes laws.
That the US founders acknowledged this fact and attempts to align their Constitution accordingly is probably the single greatest attribute of the US Constitution.
So now the fundamental question: Is there a such thing as a God-given right to own property?
I don't think so. Thus, the "right to own property" is a fallacy. There are certainly "laws allowing ownership of property, under certain conditions", but laws are defined by men with the biggest guns.
So I come full circle back to my original point, the Israeli/Palestinian crisis is in an unnatural and unending state because of the ability of semi-impotent organizations (UN) and US to appeal for restraint. Both the US and UN deny Israel the "right" to establish law by force while at the same time refusing to establish law in the Palestinian territory. Unless the UN or US would conquer either of the warring parties and set down the law, then they have no business preventing the conflict from coming to a natural resolution, so that long term peace may ensue.
Conquerers establish peace. Not the weak.
Depends on which dictionary you look up "law" in. Sometimes it is defined as "a body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community."
Anyway, I like your definition, so I'm willing to go along with it.
If you take your car back by force from the police agency which confiscated it without due process you will have committed a crime, and go to jail.
You have committed a crime as defined by some unjust law, but you haven't really committed a crime. Or, using your distinction between rights and law above, you have broken a law but haven't violated anyone's rights. You may be guilty in the eyes of a corrupt government, but you are innocent in the eyes of God.
Is there a such thing as a God-given right to own property?
Of course there is. It is implied in the right to life. How could you live by right if you didn't rightfully own your body, and the wealth you create? Anyone could come and rightfully take possession of your teeth or your tongue or your stomach--even your whole body. Whenever you manage to obtain some food, anyone could come and rightfully take it away from you!
"First possession" is a thoroughly discredited and naive concept. All property today has been acquired through war. The rights of the precedent owners (Indians, English, Mexicans etc) have been replaced by the rights of the conquerers (American citizens).
The area of the United States is so vast that it could hardly have been covered by Indian landowners in its entirety. In fact, the Indians were nomadic people who simply didn't have the concept of property. Texas seceded from Mexico in a war of independence, fought against a tyrannical power which did not respect individual rights, and later joined the United States voluntarily.
It is fashionable in certain circles to think of the acquisition of American land as a brutal and unjust conquest that evicted civilized landowners like you and me from their property. Need I say which political agenda these "circles" subscribe to? Don't be fooled by them. You don't "own" your land because you inherited it from a thief; you own it because you inherited (or bought) it from someone who acquired it as a well-earned result of his toil and his spirit of enterprise.