It’s not so much that the ball and lawn are “touching.” That’s not the key issue. The key issue here is that your ball becomes “lodged,” so to speak, so deeply into his lawn, that you cannot possibly possess it without violating his property rights (unless he gives his consent for you to come onto his property).
Because you have lost all physical control over the ball, and now have no ethical means by which to possess it (assuming the lawn owner doesn’t consent for you to come on his lawn), it is meaningless to call it your “property” any longer. At least some level of control over a thing is necessary to make “property” meaningful.
Like the gas canister owner, whose gas escapes into the atmosphere, once you lose all levels of control over your property, it is meaningless to call it your property any longer.
That cannot be true. I have lost physical control over something if a thief takes the ball by aggression, but I still own it. The point is that neither me nor my neighbor have committed aggression, so neither me or my neighbor can claim any of the other’s property without their permission. I only owe the restitution for damages at that point.
Again, that is the point in dispute. And its also false.
Person A steals my car and sells it to person B, who buys it in good faith not knowing it to be stolen. I can reclaim it from person B, should they refuse to hand it over to me. Just because the car has left my possession does not cause my title to it to be voided.
So holding the property of another on your property against their will can diminish your ownership over your own property.
In that case, you have lost physical control over the ball, but you still have an ethical means to repossess it. If it was taken from you by theft, then the thief forfeits his own property rights to the extent necessary for you to repossess it.
Exactly. I have conceded to the fact that I cannot force my neighbor to do my bidding and vice versa. It is still my property, but it must sit there until we make a deal.
You dispute the fact that transgressing against another person’s property when they have initiated no transgression against your property is an act of trespass?
Because the car was stolen from you by Person A, then you still have an ethical means to repossess it, meaning you retain the property title in it and may legitimately repossess it.
Just because your property leaves your possession does not cause your title in it to be voided. Correct. But if, due to your action, you lose complete physical control of your property and have no ethical claim on others to return it to you, it becomes meaningless to call it your property, just as in the case of the gas-canister owner whose gas escapes into the atmosphere.
If it is indeed their property that you are holding against their will, then, yes, you forfeit your property rights to the extent necessary for them to reclaim their property.
Suppose that I do lose my ownership to the ball when it falls on an unreachable part of his lawn. Do I then gain my ownership back if I buy a jetpack that can reach it?
It is only still your property if you retain some level of control over it.
In this case, because it was your neighbor who stole the property from you, you do have an ethical claim on him to return the ball to you. That is a level of control, and thus it is still meaningful to call it your property.
If you lose all levels of (physical and ethical) control over your property, it becomes unowned, and may be homesteaded by whoever can reach it first. If you reach it first, you may homestead it and make it your property again.
your ownership of the ball remains , but this is only the right to determine how it is used assuming employing means which themselves are legitimate. if the ball can not be recovered legitimately it must remain yours and away from you, until it can perhaps later be yours again and under your control, by a series of legitimate events.
the gas canister example, one might retain one property rights inthe gas particles (for all the good it would do) until they are set adrift onto others property in whhich case the ball on land scenario obtains, if you can legtiimately pick out particles of gas from the sides of peopels walls leaving them undamaged etc, than more power to you, but …
If you have no level of physical control over something, and you have no ethical claim against others to give it to you, how can it be said to be your property? An ethic must be a meaningful concept to be usable. Saying, of something over which you have no level of physical or ethical control, “This is mine,” is meaningless.
perhaps this can be resolved by stating that others arent obliged to go out of their way to give you what is yours, and yet they can not damage what is yours without your permission
It has nothing to do with touching the lawn. It has to do with the fact that you lose all level of physical control over it, and you have no ethical claim against others to return it to you.