You are never justified to violate a right.
I cannot recommend enough that you need to ask less questions and do more of your own thinking. You must be able to reason out these answers for yourself.
This construction of strawmen, and then taking it to a reductio gets very frustrating for everyone responding to you.
Prove the inverse. Prove you can own something without control (absolute physical control is a strawman).
I have already. It just happened to be completely ignored.
Once again, my stance is:
Rightfully owned property stays one’s rightfully owned property until they voluntarily part with it. If one loses it and someone else finds it, they are still the rightful owner, and must pay restitution for the efforts of the finder in order to get it back. It can be only be completely homesteaded through personal choice or death.
I have chosen this stance after much thought, and decided upon it because it is very simple, very effective, and does not contradict any natural rights. I do not fanthom how the idea of “losing control of property is losing ownership of the property” is preferred. From what I have seen, it is complicated (to what extent does one have to “lose control”?), unfair (thief parking car in another’s lawn example), and unnecessary when compared with mine. It seems to serve only as a tool for taking away what someone has worked hard for, whether it be a car or a soccer ball, and giving them to others by sheer chance. If anyone can show me how this benefits good, honest people without being at the expense of others, then be my guest, for I have officially given up looking for its virtues.
I disagree. I think one is justified in self-defense against a voluntary aggressor.
This is, once again, axiom vs axiom. My stance says as long as you rightfully owned it to start, involuntary loss of control does not remove ownership. I thought of that myself, through my own reasoning, and I believe it is much better and easier to apply consistently.
You misunderstand the situation then.
Someone who commits a rights violation (aggression) surrenders their rights. Aggression is not an act of liberty.
Don’t believe. Know. Prove it by applying it. Give us an example where control is non-existent and property ownership is rational.
Ok. By my axiom, the lawnowner has a right to remove the ball from his land. He does not have the right to do anything else with my ball. I have the right to remove his land from my ball. I do not have the right to tresspass his land. However, I have told the lawnowner that I wanted the ball removed from his land, and he does not comply. He has committed voluntary aggression, and I am entitled to take it myself.
It is easy to apply consistently because it does not have to define any “loss of control” situations. It is very cut-and-dry in its logic.
The soccer ball example is just that. It is rational for me to still own the ball, even though I cannot control it.
It would be better for you to not be convinced since that’s obviously false. If that were true, then as soon as a thief gains ‘physical control’ over something he becomes the owner and gets to keep it.
This is the problem. Knowledge is not a stance. It’s not about picking and choosing what suits you.
Perhaps your inability to fathom is the problem, not that the idea is wrong?
Very well put. Thanks for the help 
So right there is a perfect example of where I still own something but am not in control of it.
c’mon mingy, you can do better than this:
say what?!?
Cause, mingy, you fail to realize that natural property is just property. The thief is not just in owning stolen property. Justice prevails when the alienable property is returned after a thief has stolen it.
And you’re whole bit about the land needs off your ball…lol That’s got to go - way too funny![:P]
You initiated coercion with throwing the ball over there in the first place. You have a slight track record problem, I’d say, with being threatening and coercive.[^o)]
Grasping at straws…?
It has been shown through thieves that you can own something you are not in control of.
I fail to see what is so funny about the “land being on the ball”, as this is shown by the laws of physics (Newton’s Third Law, Einstein’s Relativity) to be an equally valid claim by both observers.
If the ball being on the lawn is due to natural forces or an involuntary action, then the following is what is consistent with both natural rights and physics:
(1) My neighbor has the right to remove his property from my soccer ball and nothing else with the ball.
(2) I have the right to remove my soccer ball from his property and nothing else with his property.
There are two cases:
(A) I declare that I want to remove the soccer ball from his property (2). He declares that I can grab it if I do not touch his property. That is not a valid declaration: By saying that, he has stated that his right to keep trespassers out is greater than my right to remove my soccer ball from his property, and committed aggression.
(B) He declares that he wants to remove his property from my soccer ball (1). I declare that he can remove it if he does not touch my soccer ball. That is not a valid declaration: By saying that, I have stated that my right to keep him from touching the soccer ball is greater than his right to remove his property from it, and have committed aggression,
your system is too easy on the negligent ball owner. there is no incentive for him to be more careful about where his ball goes. you are lacking a precious element.
He still must pay for any damages caused by the ball.
You are missing the point. The claim to the ball is as absolute as the claim to the land. (Actually the claim to the land is more conventional (and less ‘absolute’) than the claim to the ball.)