> Define native people. Did any other peoples live on that land before them? Okay, how about "the people who first settled a particular piece of land, thereby

> Define native people. Did any other peoples live on that land before them? Okay, how about "the people who first settled a particular piece of land, thereby laying an inalienable claim of ownership to it." > Did any tribe fight with the other for the same piece of land? Oh wait, never mind. If somebody else didn't recognize their rights, I guess you don't have to either. Sounds to me like you're fishing for a reason not not respect their claim to the land. I can't help but question how committed you are to the vision of property that you presented. Inalienable doesn't mean "absolute, except when somebody else violated it first", or "except when the theft happened a long time ago", or "except when somebody else is living there and it would make them really sad to have to leave". It means always, forever, no exceptions. So if you don't believe that, why not just admit so? > Next time robbers get into your house don't call the police, instead suggest your service to them. I'm glad you said that. It's an incredibly hackneyed trope, but also perfectly illustrates my point about how enforcement of property rights serves the collective interests of society and isn't absolute. The police are not actually there to protect my property at all costs. They are there to enforce the social contract to the extent that we have collectively decided is economical. This is a balancing of various concerns (privacy, safety, financial) of the community, not a recognition of any supreme right. In fact, barring extraordinary circumstances, the police will do absolutely nothing to help me recover my property. They will probably snap a couple pictures and take down a police report, but making me whole is the responsibility of my insurance company. > Before you have any currency you need a valuable stuff to be created so that you can measure its value by your currency. Finally an interesting point that directly addresses the substance of what I wrote. It's true enough, but misses the point that a "wealth creator" who lives in a non-monetary society probably isn't accumulating sufficient excess profits for it to be socially useful to tax them, which I will remind you is the context of this discussion. > Before you have a legal system you have to agree on the fundamental principles foundational to your way of living. No, you don't - a legal system is exactly how you reach that agreement. A system of laws isn't like a mathematical structure, with immutable axioms at the foundation and theorems built on top. It's more like an empirical science, where the theories evolve and adapt to fit the realities of the physical world. That's why even the constitution can be amended. > try a lifestyle in Venezuela or Somaliland for a change. If those countries have anything in common, it is that ownership, as defined by ability to occupy protect the land with a gun or a pointy stick, has subsumed all other aspects of the social contract. So if you want to live somewhere that respects your right to kill others in defense of property, those would be excellent choices. As I pointed out in my comment, my friend Jeff Bezos and I would prefer to stay in a society that takes a more holistic view of social obligations, instead of recognizing only the rights of whomever happens to be exploiting a piece of property at this particular moment. > Infrastructure is created by the same wealth creators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.) First of all, here is a quote from the very top of the article you cite: "The Great Northern was the only successfully built privately funded transcontinental railroad in U.S. history. No federal subsidies were used during its construction, unlike all other transcontinental railroads." I'm not sure this proves what you think it does. And even if it did, I offered an obnoxiously long list of other elements of the infrastructure that were provided, in part or in whole, by Uncle Sam. So unless you're going to claim that Amazon delivers exclusively via the only privately funded railroad, I'm not sure if I see the relevance of this point. But since you brought them up, I will also point out that the railroad industry was one of the most predatory monopolies that has ever existed, and is the root cause of much of current day anti-trust law, which was establish when society decided that their freedoms were being excessively harmed by allowing exclusive, unlimited control of such an important resource. Their operation is a perfect example of the consequences of unfettered accumulation of capital, and a great argument for a wealth tax. In fact, Andrew Carnegie is the only person in US history to ever have a tax bracket of his very own.