>> The right to take an unowned thing is the liberty right to act as one
>> will, as long as no one else's rights are violated. Since no one has
>> a right to an unowned thing, no one's rights are violated by anyone's
>> taking it. The right to that thing, the property right in it,
>> commences when it is first possessed.
>
> Taking that which is not yours, whether unowned or in the commons is
> not an inalienable right. Some societies grant such a right, while
> others do not.
Several confusions there. First, an "inalienable" right is simply a
right which cannot be transferred or assigned, because of the nature of
the property in question. E.g., your right to your life is an
inalienable one because you cannot convey it to another.
The distinction you are probably trying to make is that between natural
and legal rights. Societies, i.e., gummints, do not grant natural rights
(that's why they are called "natural"). Natural rights is a moral
notion, not a legal one. Natural rights are the rights which attach to
one's natural possessions --- to one's life, one's body, one's innate
talents, capacities, and skills. You bring those assets, and the rights
to them, into the world with you; they are not gifts from societies,
gummints, or anyone else. Others often have the power to violate them,
but they have no power to revoke or extinguish them.
Your body, including your brain, are natural property you possess at
birth. You have a natural (and inalienable) right to those assets. As
with any other property of yours, your property right to it entails a
right to use it in any way, and for any purpose, you choose, as long as
you don't violate anyone else's rights in the process. That includes
taking into possession any unowned good you happen to come across and
which you imagine might be useful to some purpose of yours. Since (by
hypothesis) no one else has any right to that good, you violate no one's
rights by taking it.
Also, don't confuse *res nullius*, or unowned goods, with commons. A
parcel of land (or any other good) may be owned in common by a number of
persons, in which case any one of the owners may use it only in
accordance with whatever rules have been jointly agreed upon by all of
its owners. But common ownerships, like individual ownerships, are
established by first possession. An undiscovered island in the ocean is
not part of any common; it is *res nullius*, and up for grabs by the
first person to discover it. Any claims anyone else might make to it,
unless they can produce evidence of prior discovery, are gratuitous.
>> Unless the land in question belonged to them, they have no power to
>> "grant" anyone any interest in it or any permission to use it.
>
> They have all the power. If they refuse to accept your claim of
> ownership, you cannot be said to own it.
I certainly can be said to own it, since the logical and material
criteria for ownership have nothing to do with others' opinions, whims,
or appetites. Those opinions or whims may well make it difficult for me
to retain possession, just as it may be difficult for me to retain
possession of my body if I'm floundering in a lagoon and surrounded by
sharks. But my body remains my property nonetheless. I still own it.
If others refuse to respect one's valid property claim, then one deals
with them as owners have always dealt with thieves and trespassers. If
there are large numbers of them then one will just need more ammo.
ownership is not >
