>I'm alleging that every square inch of land in California was claimed by Spain when Mexico took it, and claimed by Mexico when the US took it. Both of them did

>I'm alleging that every square inch of land in California was claimed by Spain when Mexico took it, and claimed by Mexico when the US took it. Both of them did so by force Spain ceded the land in a treaty, as did Mexico. Sovereignty is not exactly the same thing as land ownership either. So it's highly questionable that a court would agree that a current land title is illegitimate. Your confidence in your position about such a complex topic is not justified by the scope of the research you've done or arguments you've brought forth. Moreover, the land titles didn't all get voided in these transfers of sovereignty. >And who said anything about taking it to a court? We're talking about morality here -- morally wrong actions don't magically become moral just because they happened years ago, even if a court would say the statute of limitations has expired for legal action. Courts are the institution that is tailor made for establishing what is moral. A statute of limitations exists for moral/justice-related reasons. You dismiss all principles of the Western justice system, which has evolved over 2,000 years, to arrive at your reckless condemnation of millions of people. >Every inch of land in California was immorally obtained by the United States, and thus there is no moral basis for the current patterns of ownership of that land. You make bold sweeping statements like this that no court would accept for numerous good reasons. But you know better than a jury of your peers and hundreds of years of legal tradition that have carefully weighed the numerous moral repercussions of each detail, right? >Any system which assumes that there is a moral basis must, to be consistent, also openly permit the use of violent force to involuntarily seize property from others, and in fact must consider such use of force to be praiseworthy. Another sweeping generalisation based on numerous shaky assumptions. A court can find current land titles legitimate for multiple factors unrelated to and despite of the fact that hundreds of years ago, the sovereignty changed as a result of a war. The fact that you don't consider the possibility of other factors existing that would be relevant to morality of current land titles, or the possibility that some maintained their land titles during the change of power from Spain to Mexico to the United States, just to insist on a premature sweeping generalization that condemns millions of people, is troubling to me. It seems to be very reckless to those you're condemning, in being unwilling to exhaust all possibilities that you're wrong before condemning them. Another thing that troubles me is you not abandoning your original position that all property is illegitimate, while making arguments about the legitimacy of only one category of property. This again suggests that you're not making an honest case for your initial position, and are instead trying to find the easiest argument you can make, and hope that I don't challenge you on other types of property. In other words, it indicates you're trying to win the debate rather than than come to a consensus on the truth.