Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> "Daniel T." earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> ... don't confuse *res nullius*, or unowned goods, with commons.
Who makes the determination as to what is res nullius (a legal term BTW)
and what is not? The fact that it's a legal term provides all the clues
you need to answer this question. The society in which you live decides
if you had "first possession" and whether that is even relevant for the
subject of ownership in the first place.
A good example of this is my wife, who picks up money she finds in
parking lots and other public places. *Legally* that money is "res
nullius" despite the fact that we all know that she has not taken "first
possession".
>>> 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.
You say that as someone steeped in a particular culture at a particular
time. I'm not saying your wrong here, I'm simply saying that it isn't
how it has to be.
> 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.
As I said before... Sometimes ones "right" comes from bruit force. If I
claim a parcel of land as my own and shoot any who disagree...