The law is full of stuff about estopple, laches, adverse possession, first-in-time = first-in-right, booty, statutes of limitation, etc. But what it all really boils down to is possession is 9/10ths of the law; or might-makes-right. From an objective, evolutionary perspective, that is moral. From our human perspective, not so much.

Rather than a bunch of finger pointing at another side, I think it is often best to look in the mirror. For instance, the U.S. entered into two different Treaties with the Lakota/Dakota. Treaties shall be the supreme law of the land, per our own Constitution. We breached those treaties. With no rational excuse. So, forget the Indians for a moment. I mean that. Forget them. Look only at us. We violated our laws. That has nothing to do with the Indians. It's all on us; what we did to ourselves. Why? Because the law doesn't mean shit when might doesn't want it to. And we all agree to look the other way. Israel learned from the best.

Pacta sunt servanda . . . . . . . rebus sic stantibus = BS.

The land people occupy has often been in someone else's possession, until possession changed hands.

The United States occupied the land of various native people; a large share of the central drainage area was purchased from France (Napoleon needed some quick money); it seized much of Mexico; Florida was obtained more peaceably from Spain. We bought Alaska from Russia, but what were they doing in the Western (our) Hemisphere? The Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico were seized from Spain during the Spanish American War. The sun never went down on the British Empire because they occupied so much property all over the world. Spain, Holland, France, Germany, Russia, Turks, Japan, et al have acquired property that way.

Had Hitler settled for Bylorussia and Ukraine, and had they been able to hold on to it, by now (75 years later) Germany would be enjoying the Lebensraum they desired. What happened under Hitler's management had happened elsewhere, like in the US.

Bad; but that's the way expansion often gets done.

Ownership is conventional.

When folk disagree as to the conventions in play, there can be no final arbiter.

IMO land, like all property, rightly belongs to whoever last had uncontested use of it. Uncontested use establishes convention, and then whoever breaks with that convention is in the wrong.

IMO land, like all property, rightly belongs to whoever last had uncontested use of it. — Pfhorrest

I'm hard-pressed to think of any uncontested land. Maybe where one of the contestants has been completely exterminated? But so long as one sole survives, even if they capitulate, was that capitulation voluntary, or under duress, or solely due to lack of will to fight anymore, brought on by might?

Uncontested use establishes convention, and then whoever breaks with that convention is in the wrong. — Pfhorrest

That's quite a load to carry. What is "contest"? If there is any contest, even rhetorical, then convention can, by that estimate, go F itself. So-called "convention" is wrong in the eyes of the dispossessed. Wrong is subjective.

IMO land, like all property, rightly belongs to whoever last had uncontested use of it. — Pfhorrest

That's your convention. Why should we adopt it?

Uncontested use establishes convention, — Pfhorrest

But the topic is contested use. So your response is useless.

I'd just like to add, some folks think the idea of ownership itself is BS. You might control it, but the sovereign can take it via condemnation in the most gracious of methods. But even the state is transitory. You can't take land with you when you die.

[deleted misattributed quote]

Is there some length of time after which you say to the original inhabitants - “Yes, you were there first, but X number of years have passed - it’s time to move on”? Again I have no idea. — EricH

Personally, I would use a few basic rules (to which more can be added):

You or your ancestors would need to have either (1) been the first settlers or (2) lived in a particular place for many generations to lay a justified claim to that particular piece of land.

The original inhabitants would have rights in perpetuity to the said land.

The rights of newcomers would depend on the degree of consent obtained from the original inhabitants to settle on their territory.

So, for example, where a particular group has gained control over another group's territory by force of arms, the original group must be given precedence over the intruding group.

Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? Or put differently - what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property? — EricH

In my view there are no rules.

States are considered Sovereigns.

There isn't actually an authority over them. Put an authority over them and they aren't independent and sovereign. That's what independence is about.

We might create a legal framework to solve such issues, and hopefully both sides can agree on the verdict given by it and don't have to go to war and spill blood over it. We can have a community of nations that can get a nation to accept an agreement. But countries can be very stubborn and when they are, either you leave them to be so or in the end fight them. Yet luckily even nation states can be reasonable as this. Good example is my nation with our neighbors the Swedes when it came to the Åland Islands. One of the successes of the League of Nations, actually

Swedish troops in the Åland Island in 1918:


Now the autonomic region on it's webpage:

I'm not talking about only land the use of which is currently uncontested; in those cases there's no problem looking for a solution. I'm saying that, in cases where something is currently contested, look back in time to find when there was an uncontested use: when someone was in possession of something and nobody else was fighting or arguing about that, everyone was fine with it. My thesis is that that was when convention was established, and that convention defines rightful ownership. Whoever later broke with that convention is the one doing something illegitimate.

In cases where that original convention cannot be determined or is lost to history, or where all the original contestants are dead and the current contestants have been contesting whose property it rightfully is their entire lives, then obviously that original convention can't be applied, and a new convention must be established to settle the question. Until the new convention is established, basically nobody "legitimately owns" anything in question, and so nobody has any right to exclude anybody else from the use of it. For that new convention to be just it must be fair in a Rawlsian sense -- a convention that everyone would agree if they were blinded to their own place in that convention. That is usually tantamount to everyone having as much and as good as everyone else, centered on whatever they're currently using.

My thesis is that that was when convention was established, — Pfhorrest

...but that is just yet another convention...

Nothing has been gained.

...but that is just yet another convention... — Banno

Is it really, or is it just your convention that views on what constitutes the establishment of a convention are themselves just conventions?

In which case nothing has been lost.

Then can you give an account of ownership that does not rely on a convention?

I doubt it, since it would require a way of talking about ownership that did not reduce to "such-and-such counts as owning said land"... and the counts as is what renders it a convention.

Just to be clear - I have no clue how to answer this difficult question. — EricH

It is a difficult question. I'm not sure it has an answer, but here's my first thought:

Morally, it's like Rousseau said: “The man who first fenced in a piece of land ...was the true founder of civil society."

Note, the quote is abbreviated. The full quote reads:

“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

But I disagree. The fruits of the earth are meagre if effort is not added; and it is universally observed that a man tends his own garden best. So, abbreviation of the quote is justified by the concept of productivity; and exclusive ownership is justified by Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, in that, common ownership leads to neglect and abuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Hence, my first thought is that it is the effort it takes to make land productive that is the basis of ownership.

My account of ownership does rely on convention, quite explicitly. You're then saying that my account of what counts as a convention (that a convention is when something is used in some way and everyone goes along with that without argument) is, itself, a convention. I'm just turning that back around on you and pointing out the gaping hole of an infinite regress it opens up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Criticism

It ain't necessarily a tragedy.

...and the point is that your supposed solution, isn't one.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6742/the-tragedy-of-the-commons/

The tragedy of the commons is a capitalist myth.

The tragedy of the commons is a capitalist myth. — Banno

Is it really? I dated an Estonian girl who lived under communism, and she told me that because nothing is owned, everyone steals. That's not a theory. That's a real world consequence of common ownership; and an example of the destructive rational self interest at the heart of the Tragedy of the Commons. It's why communism failed, and capitalism is still going strong.

Ah, we bow before Counterpunch's ex- girlfriend! With such brilliantly expounded argumentation, how could he be wrong!

I don't really know what 'ownership' exactly means. Is it used as a synonym for entitled? From a perspective of realpolitik, my intuition is that ownership is whatever you can get away with over an extended period.

Ah, we bow before Counterpunch's ex- girlfriend! With such brilliantly expounded argumentation, how could he be wrong! — Banno

...

...just claim Hume said it... that'll work.

I recently read a statement that went something to the effect: At the pizza party after work, one guy took three slices thinking it would run out. Another guy took one slice thinking the same thing.

I practiced public lands law out west for some time, and got involved in grazing issues and the Taylor Grazing Act. I also studied the tragedy of the commons. It made sense then and it makes sense now. It's not a capitalist myth, but a tragedy when capitalists feed at the public trough. However, some of the critiques, above, are indeed persuasive. I think it comes down to what kind of people are feeding at the public trough. Americans that I know lean toward taking three slices of pizza.

As one who thinks the trees should have standing, I think privatization is a non-starter developer's wet dream. "Condos all around Old Faithful! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

...just claim Hume said it... that'll work. — Banno

I saw the notification, and now I'm disappointed. Are you trying to be funny - because, if so, swing and a miss.

At the pizza party after work, one guy took three slices thinking it would run out. Another guy took one slice thinking the same thing. — James Riley

That's mine; I'm keeping that.

I'm using myth as a cover for narratives that say little but justify certain actions. You're right that the myth of the tragedy of the commons will come true if everyone believes it, and as a result takes three slices.

I remember reading Thoreau, where he talked about visiting others’ “property” to enjoy the natural phenomena on it: he said he got much more out of that experience than did the poor “owners” of it did who had to work constantly to pay for it, and were still in debt up to their necks.

That's mine; I'm keeping that. — Banno

It was social media of some sort, and they don't allow me to cut and paste. I don't know how to screen shot, and I was too lazy to write it down. I wish I could give proper attribution. :sad:

You're right that the myth of the tragedy of the commons will come true if everyone believes it, and as a result takes three slices. — Banno

This comes to you from the space between Banno's ears! The wonder is how he can hear his own thoughts in a vacuum!

This comes to you from the space between Banno's ears! The wonder is how he can hear his own thoughts in a vacuum! — counterpunch

So - are we doing the flame-war thing? 'cause that don't work well here. But happy to play along, if that's what you want.

Or better, you could offer an argument, as against anecdotes from your lost loves.