The Occupation Theory Of Property

the land they claim, it simply gives them the right to a say in the

To define property is thus to represent boundaries between people, equally, it is to articulate at least one set of conscious ecological boundaries between people and things. The property relation is triadic: ‘A owns B against C’, where C represents all other individuals. Yes, European colonists have a strong concept of land ownership. They believed that there exists two ways of owning land, one natural, and one

Ownership is the act and state of having something in control or possession. Aristotle claims that owning tangible objects help to build moral character, while Jean-Paul Sartre proposes that ownership extends beyond to include intangible things such as skill or knowledge. Different objects can have varying effects on the development of self identity, leading us to who we grow as a person. A sense of self can be a reflection to what we own, whether it is a tangible or not. Ownership of intangible and tangible objects play a vital role for the growth of self identity, as it teaches crucial morals in life to develop personal character.

Now, when it came to ownership of the land the Native Americans were known for hunting so, they needed their hunting land as well as land to grow crops. They were open for sharing land, “The South’s native people had well-defined hunting territories, fishing grounds, and agricultural plots which they vigorously defended against encroachment. However, they did not regard land as property that could be transferred in perpetuity to another individual or group”. However, the Europeans did not think the land should be shared. So, when they came over they took the land away from the

people also say they have the right to the land on the basis of history, religion and their ethnic

The taking of land refers “to government seizure, regulation, or intrusion on private property for which the owner is entitled to compensations under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). There is also regulatory takings, which is the “newly enforceable restrictions on the use of ones property, such as a newly adopted restrictions on building in certain areas of wetlands.” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). All over the world governments take private land from its owners to benefit the public. In the United States it is called emanated domain, and has been a controversial issue till this day. By evaluating the case of Lucas V South Carolina Coastal Council of 1992 and evaluating the two types of regulatory action that automatically trigger compensation as takings; the dissent object to the takings approach laid out by the majority in this case; cities ability to take private property and transfer it to private developers for the sake of economic revitalization; the ethical issues surrounding the principle of using eminent domain to take away the property ownership rights of individuals; and the feeling I would have if the government was to take my land.

The strongest legal arguments in favour of the Native Americans was the dispute over land rights. The Native Americans have lived here in the United States long before anyone else. Their belief in the inheritance of the land is expressed in the Niles weekly register, which states “The land on which we stand, we have received as an inheritance from our fathers, who possessed it from time immemorial, as a gift from our common father in heaven.” By definition, ownership is said to be original, where the owner has brought the property into human control for the first time, as by occupying land or capturing a wild animal, or derivative, where the owner acquires from the previous owner as in a sale. Therefore, the Native Americans maintained ownership of lands in which they did not either sell or lose in treaties that were signed. The removal of Indians from their homes would not only immoral but illegal. Despite having legally acquired

For several years, the inhabitants of our country were taken advantage of, trade inhabitants d into slavery, victims of killings and singled out by the immigrants who sought entitlements of their territories. Before any European or Spanish authority stepped foot on American coasts, the inhabitants already had their origins rooted in the soil of what was to become the United States of America. Different from the immigrants, the occupants did not have the same approach to declaring and take control of the land. They were seekers who were watchful of the land they were occupants of and deemed themselves equivalents of any, and anything that occupied the area. They pictured the land as open for those who wanted to live there. They were also well

The Europeans took advantage of the belief that no owned the land, and argued that since no one technically owned the land, and then they could claim it for themselves. They overlooked all the people cultivating the land, and demolished many dwellings and Indian property once they had claimed the

According to the textbook, it states, “Our legal system creates a peaceful means to acquire, retain, and divest of property, and to settle property disputes” (Lau, 2012, p. 242). The textbook also states, “Without laws to protect ownership, the stability of our society would be seriously undermined” (Lau, 2012, p. 241). The issue in this case is who has the burden of proof regarding the averse possession of the property, so if I was the judge I would rule for the Kirlins. McLean and Steven are not the owners of the real property but has claimed the real property for their own (Lau, 2012, p. 255). The article states that the Kirlins brought the land in 1984 for $55,000; in fact, they never seen McLean and Stevens ever using the property when they went for walks (Denver). I feel the Kirlins should prevail in this event of litigation.

In the Eddie Mabo case, the case related to the ownership and control of land. However, aboriginal land rights were not recognised. In this case there were two major principles, which were terra nullius and native title. Terra Nullis is a legal principle indicating that a particular part of land doesn’t belong to anyone or could be considered as no man’s land. Only Captain Cook in 1770 claimed all of the east coast under international recognised law at the time. It followed three ground rules. The rules were if the land is uninhabited, any country could claim ownership and settle the land under the principle of terra nullius. If the land was inhabited, another country could request the leaders of the indigenous inhabitants for permission to make use of some of the land. This may involve making a land purchase, or coming to some other agreement such as treaty which was agreeable to the indigenous population. The last rule meant that a country already inhabited could be conquered through invasion and war,

     Sure, cried the tenant men, but it's our land.  We measured it and broke it up.  We were born on it, and we got killed on it, died on it.  That's what makes it ours - being born on it, working it, dying on it.  That makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on it (p.45).

Valerie Martin’s Novel Property is an engrossing story of the wife of a slave owner and a slave, whom a mistress of the slave owner, during the late 18th century in New Orleans. Martin guides you through both, Manon Guadet and her servant Sarah’s lives, as Ms. Gaudet unhappily lives married on a plantation and Sarah unhappily lives on the plantation. Ms. Gaudet’s misserableness is derived from the misfortune of being married to a man that she despises and does not love. Sarah, the slave, is solely unhappy due to the fact that she is a slave, and has unwillingly conceived to children by Ms. Gaudiest husband, which rightfully makes Sarah a mistress. Throughout the book, Martin captivates the reader and enables you to place yourself in the

It is often conceptualized that property is the rights of 'ownership'. In common law property is divided

The United States of America was built on the ideals set forth by our founding fathers in the Constitution of the United States of America. Such ideals are held to the highest standards in our community to this day; like our right to the freedom of speech, our right to bear arms, and the right to own property. Each of these rights are firmly stated in the Constitution, along with many other rights that citizens of the Untied States have. The ideals of our founding fathers were so profound that many other nations modeled their democracy after the Constitution put forth by the Americans. It is basic human rights that people should have the freedom of speech, religion, and press and the right to own property. And we