That’s not the “occupancy and use” position - it’s actually the amoralist Max Stirner position (I.E. “I own what I can take”). It isn’t even a reductio of the “occupancy and use” position because such a reductio is predicated on a misunderstanding of the position is - which is not that “perpetual use” is required. So no go.
I didn’t say that Brainpolice… wrong quoting.
BP has never let small things like accuracy in sourcing get in the way of making a point.
Kinsella has recently been smashing the premise of occupancy and use on the Mises blog (and perhaps elsewhere).