What struck me about that is that it could perhaps be reworded as a conflict over what 'property rights' mean. One of them is "right to destroy" and the other i

What struck me about that is that it could perhaps be reworded as a conflict over what 'property rights' mean. One of them is "right to destroy" and the other is "obligation to protect". Viz, the "common lands" are lands which everyone has an obligation to protect so they can be shared not just with those currently alive, but with future generations. The "royal lands" is land where the owner has the right not just to deny others the use of it, but can choose to destroy it. Those property rights can encompass more than just land, and generally includes people (conscription is the exertion of 'right to destroy' over people, for example) In Australia this has led to utter incomprehension on the part of the colonists when locals choose to be killed rather than let their property be destroyed. Their lives are so bound up with the obligation to care for country that without that obligation their lives don't exist. The colonialists found this convenient although their short term approach obviously leads to their own demise. Traditional lands rights preserved the country for 50,000 years, royal rights look to destroy it in less than 1000. Ooops.