I can make that distinction fine. I am simply saying that for all practical purposes, due to the nature of physical space (being under my house) you cannot get to it. If my house is mine, on top of the land, then the land is inaccessible to you. If I own my house, and you have no right to enter without an invitation, then you also cannot get to the land, without breaching my house, at which point I would use force to remove you, effectively forcing off of the land underneath it as well. This is very simple man. It's been nice talking with you.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Okay, then explain why you think you have the right to build a house on land that you not own, because nobody owns it, just because nobody was able to stop you in time.
(Which is basically what happened with the homesteading act in the "Wild West")
If nobody can build a house, we are all in trouble bro.
Nobody said you can't build one, bro!
I was just asking who gave you the right to do it.
Nature. The "right" to try anduse my body to survive, at least, and that includes taking/building shelter.
But what right do you have to take away the possibility of other to do that?
Not to mention that this, again, has nothing to do with property. You can do this without owning the land. And I don't want to point to American Natives here again, who did not understand how the white man could say he own the land, which was obvious BS.
Then I can come and tear up your house, correct? Because you have no right to force me off of the land it is on. This is real life. Physical space has limitations. Resources are scarce, and people have needs. The best system is one that recognizes this obvious reality.
Native Americans had property as well, which is why opposing tribes had battles.
Now you are back at the house instead of the interesting point of the land.