Ultimately there are no inherited rights, only guns. So I am not sure what argument you are making? I thought you could come up with some fundamental principle,

Ultimately there are no inherited rights, only guns. So I am not sure what argument you are making? I thought you could come up with some fundamental principle, like "human society would be better if we all adhered to this rule, because bla bla and so forth". As I stated elsewhere, I think communities or governments sell land under certain premises. For example (possibly) that people buying become part of the community and get a vote in further developments. That would be a reason why they would have "the right" to interfere.