After all, they were here first.
I doubt any of the people who lost their land to whitey is still around to appeal to justice.
Besides that, should that big Russian dude in Rocky IV get the boxing victory. I mean… he lost. Sly had the bigger guns.
Basically what I am saying is THIS IS AMURRRICA, F*** YEAH!
Really? They homesteaded and never abandoned every single inch of the USA landmass?
Define “homesteaded” and “abandoned”. Is a nomadic lifestyle not viewed as legitimate?
This has been discussed several times. In summary, it has been said that some tribes accepted some idea of land ownership, whilst others did not. Of course, it is completely impossible to trace the ties that would lead to anyone specifically claiming anything.
Use the m-w.com definitions.
What do yo mean?
There is no such thing as collective ownership.
Business partnerships are also considered illegitimate?
So how is original ownership determined?
If you were a nomadic tribe, would all of your traveling area considered your property, even if it was seasonally homesteaded, then abandoned over and over?
By evidence, which sure as hell no longer exists.
Homestead
transitive verb
: to acquire or occupy as a homestead
intransitive verb : to acquire or settle on land under a homestead law
Abandon
1 a : to give up to the control or influence of another person or agent b : to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in
Still doesn’t help much
So, if a culture has no writing system, is it impossible for it to determine property rights?
Not necessarily. We may have travelled through someone’s property to get somewhere.
Anyway, even if they nomads, did they travel on every single inch of the USA landmass?
There is a big difference. In a partnership each individual has defined terms of ownership. He owns his portion of the partnership as an individual and has some rights over the assets of the partnership as an individual. In collective ownership the individuals in the collective have no rights at all over the property being claimed to be collectively owned. Instead, some individual or conspiracy of individuals exercise actual control over the assets. They are the real owners, not the collective.
No. They own something else.
A farmer planting a field has not homesteaded the oil beneath it, but only the surface. A pastoral nomad using a parcel of land for grazing of animals does not homesteaded that land, but only an easement to be allowed to use this land for grazing again in the future. ( So a farmer can homestead a piece of land that the nomads use for grazing, but then he is going to need to allow the nomads to graze their livestock on his fields, albeit not for more days than they would have grazed on it if the land was not jet cultivated. )
There is very little land that Indians own, however they own an easement to be allowed free access for the purpose of hunting over huge areas of it. Plus they would be owed compensation for the fact they can not kill the same amount of animals they could before Colombus, if the people who exterminated all those animals were still alive.