A Slew of SCOTUS Decisions.

[NotreDame]

This is but one problem with your suggestion, hinted at in your query. The people of today have not committed the injustice and to treat them as they had, by taking away their wealth today, on the basis some of it was acquired at a time an injustice was perpetuated, but undoubtedly some of the wealth was not attained during an injustice, is equally an injustice. Perpetuating an injustice to remedy an injustice is not fair, just, or rational.

I'm just trying to lay some groundwork and establish some basic principles. In general, people are making too many assumptions so far.

Yourself included.

Again, let's just establish a few clear ethical principles. I think it can be shown people are in possession of stolen property, especially when it comes to American Indians and basically everyone not of American Indian descent living in the Americas.

There has been no demonstration people are in possession of stolen property. You may "think" anything but your thoughts may not reflect reality, may not be accurate or correct, so your mere "thinking" people are in possession of stolen property is not sufficient to presume or assume this is a fact.

first thought that occurs when you raise this point is to go back to one of the examples: I steal your money, and I invest it, causing the stolen wealth to double. Should I get to keep the increase over the stolen capital, given that I should never have had that capital in the first place?

This is not analogous to what we are presently discussing. Your example has the thief, and only the thief, multiplying the stolen money. Today, the original thief is no longer in existence but instead we are several generations removed from the original thief, in some instances two or more centuries removed from the original thief, rendering your example non-parallel.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Yourself included.

We shall see.

There has been no demonstration people are in possession of stolen property. You may "think" anything but your thoughts may not reflect reality, may not be accurate or correct, so your mere "thinking" people are in possession of stolen property is not sufficient to presume or assume this is a fact.

Going very strictly by what you have written, you are correct. But nothing you've written above is really an argument against what I have said. That I have as yet offered no demonstration doesn't mean no demonstration is possible. That my thoughts may not reflect reality is no guarantee that they do not.

This is not analogous to what we are presently discussing. Your example has the thief, and only the thief, multiplying the stolen money. Today, the original thief is no longer in existence but instead we are several generations removed from the original thief, in some instances two or more centuries removed from the original thief, rendering your example non-parallel.

Let's just deal with the example I've proposed first, and then add the complexity later. To be clear: I do mean to deal with the additional layers of complexity you point out, if anyone has the stamina for it. But it seems all too easy to get lost in those layers of complexity, and fail to keep track of all the ethical principles that should be respected.

 

[NotreDame]

We shall see.



Going very strictly by what you have written, you are correct. But nothing you've written above is really an argument against what I have said. That I have as yet offered no demonstration doesn't mean no demonstration is possible. That my thoughts may not reflect reality is no guarantee that they do not.



Let's just deal with the example I've proposed first, and then add the complexity later. To be clear: I do mean to deal with the additional layers of complexity you point out, if anyone has the stamina for it. But it seems all too easy to get lost in those layers of complexity, and fail to keep track of all the ethical principles that should be respected.

But nothing you've written above is really an argument against what I have said. That I have as yet offered no demonstration doesn't mean no demonstration is possible. That my thoughts may not reflect reality is no guarantee that they do not.

I do not have any burden to make a counterargument. You, however, in making an argument, have the burden to substantiate your claims and support your argument with facts. It is your burden to support your allegations of theft and not my burden to make counterarguments.

Let's just deal with the example I've proposed first, and then add the complexity later. To be clear: I do mean to deal with the additional layers of complexity you point out, if anyone has the stamina for it. But it seems all too easy to get lost in those layers of complexity, and fail to keep track of all the ethical principles that should be respected

This is not complicated. Someone, in the distant past, a few centuries ago, several generations ago, allegedly committed some injustice. This injustice resulted in the acquisition of wealth, money, advantages or facilitated in the acquisition of money, wealth, and advantages. Now, fast forward to today, and many interconnected generations later, some peoples' wealth, money, assets, and advantages is derived from this initial injustice. However, the wealth, money, assets, and advantages they have labored to achieve was not lawfully and legitimately.

Pretty simple to understand. We are not discussing String Theory in Physics here.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I do not have any burden to make a counterargument.

I'm not sure how to parse the above. Sure, you are under no obligation to offer a counterargument. But if you do offer a counterargument, it has to have force (i.e. be either sound or cogent).

You, however, in making an argument, have the burden to substantiate your claims and support your argument with facts.

Sure. The principle facts that seem to be forgotten by others in this thread are the moral facts that justify affirmative action. The hypothetical examples I've proposed show us that our intuitions reveal those facts.

It is your burden to support your allegations of theft and not my burden to make counterarguments.

I have not made an allegation of theft per se, but I suppose now is as good a time as any to start:

1. It seems quite clear that a number of thefts did occur at times in the past. There were people living in North America when Europeans came here, and the history of colonization is to that extent a history of stealing land. It belonged to the First Peoples, and through force and subterfuge, it was taken by others. That seems to fit the definition of theft quite well.

2. To the extent that labor is part of a person's property, then surely slavery was theft. Similarly, to the extent that personal rights are part of a person's property, Jim Crow laws were a theft as well. It's important, when reasoning through this example, not to fall into the trap of thinking that if one calls slavery a kind of theft, that's all it can be. Slavery involves multiple other crimes, and is also a kind of crime wholly unique. That doesn't mean it isn't theft.

I find it odd that I have to actually state this case.

This is not complicated. Someone, in the distant past, a few centuries ago, several generations ago, allegedly committed some injustice. This injustice resulted in the acquisition of wealth, money, advantages or facilitated in the acquisition of money, wealth, and advantages. Now, fast forward to today, and many interconnected generations later, some peoples' wealth, money, assets, and advantages is derived from this initial injustice. However, the wealth, money, assets, and advantages they have labored to achieve was not lawfully and legitimately.

Pretty simple to understand. We are not discussing String Theory in Physics here.

Hmmm...all I can say is that you have an odd view of what's complicated and what isn't. There is a great deal of complexity merely in what you have written.

 

[NotreDame]

I find it odd that I have to actually state this case.





Hmmm...all I can say is that you have an odd view of what's complicated and what isn't. There is a great deal of complexity merely in what you have written.

Maybe complicated for you, but the subject matter is not difficult to comprehend, understand, analyze, parse, or properly perceive of the underlying assumptions and inferences of the argument and facts.

I find it odd that I have to actually state this case.

I find it odd you cannot articulate a substantive argument. For instance:

1. It seems quite clear that a number of thefts did occur at times in the past. There were people living in North America when Europeans came here, and the history of colonization is to that extent a history of stealing land. It belonged to the First Peoples, and through force and subterfuge, it was taken by others. That seems to fit the definition of theft quite well.

Was the land "stolen" from the Native Americans? I am dubious of this claim. First, Native Americans did not exert dominion, control, possession, and/or use of the entire available land. Indeed, the initial colonists and European people arrived and settled in locations in which the Native Americans did not exert dominion, control, possession, and/or use of the land. There was no theft of this land from the Native Americans.

Now, what about the land the Native Americans did exert dominion, control, possession, and/or use of the land? Is it theft to take land under these circumstances? Your belief the answer is "yes" immediately necessitates answering a plethora of preliminary questions you have not addressed. Such as:

1. How does one come to possess land to the exclusion of all other people such that to take the land is theft? What is required to possess land to the exclusion of all others such that to take the land is theft? Need I, or anyone else, merely stand on the land we want and declare the land to be our own? If declaring land to be mine is not sufficient to make the land my own, and possess the land as my own, then what else is required?

2. Must I use the land? If I must use the land, then what kind of use is sufficient for possession to the exclusion of all other people? Do I have to urinate on the land? Must I defecate on the land? Must I farm the land? Do I need to use the land to erect structures on the land, such as an abode, home, etcetera?

3. Do I have to spend so many hours of the day or week on the land itself?

4. Assuming possession to exclusion of all others can be established, how long does possession last? Is possession perpetual? Can I extinguish possession?

What you view as a "clear" instance of theft, land and Native Americans, is not as unequivocal as you suggest. Previously, you made a comment too many people were making assumptions. I stated you, yourself, make too many assumptions. This is but one instance where you ASSUME theft but make no effort to really establish how and why a theft occurred, much less address those questions I presented which are germane to the notion of a theft occurring.

What separates us is you indeed ASSUME certain facts, principles, notions, ideas, as true, as a fact, whereas I am less inclined to do so.

.Similarly, to the extent that personal rights are part of a person's property, Jim Crow laws were a theft as well.

Personal rights are not property, so you can dispense with this "theft of personal rights" notion. I am not alleging Jim Crow laws did not result in some measurable harm to blacks.

not to fall into the trap of thinking that if one calls slavery a kind of theft, that's all it can be.

This "trap" must be applicable to someone else, as I never had occasion to limit slavery a singular, defining characteristic of "theft." So, thanks for the, well, pointless suggestion.

To the extent that labor is part of a person's property, then surely slavery was theft.

How, exactly, is affirmative action is justifiable on the basis slavery was immoral, theft, and non-payment for labor?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Maybe complicated for you, but the subject matter is not difficult to comprehend, understand, analyze, parse, or properly perceive of the underlying assumptions and inferences of the argument and facts.

I disagree. Given the plethora of questions you ask below about the comparatively simple notion of ownership (of land, specifically), it seems downright bizarre that you'd say this.

Was the land "stolen" from the Native Americans? I am dubious of this claim. First, Native Americans did not exert dominion, control, possession, and/or use of the entire available land. Indeed, the initial colonists and European people arrived and settled in locations in which the Native Americans did not exert dominion, control, possession, and/or use of the land. There was no theft of this land from the Native Americans.

This is not factual. When the Europeans arrived, (some of) the First Peoples with whom they had contact let them establish settlements. See, for instance, Francis Jennings, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest, Norton, 1975, pp 105-78, 298-326.

But leaving aside those first contacts, the Federal Government (not to mention many state governments) established treaties with the First Peoples recognizing their claims to tracts of land, and those treaties were subsequently violated. They remain legally binding documents of which the United States remains in violation--perhaps most famously in the events leading up to the trail of tears, but there are hundreds of examples.

1. How does one come to possess land to the exclusion of all other people such that to take the land is theft?

Who knows, and why does it matter? All that matters is that people do actually own land at some point in time (also, why are you even asking about possession, and not ownership?).

What is required to possess land to the exclusion of all others such that to take the land is theft?

Someone must own the land.

Need I, or anyone else, merely stand on the land we want and declare the land to be our own?

Again, why does it matter? What matters is whether or not ownership is actual.

If declaring land to be mine is not sufficient to make the land my own, and possess the land as my own, then what else is required?

As things stand, I don't see the relevance of your questions, and will therefore refrain from answering them. If you can show relevance in a manner that overcomes my replies above, I'll answer your questions.

What you view as a "clear" instance of theft, land and Native Americans, is not as unequivocal as you suggest.

It's a matter of who has the burden of proof, here. Merely asking the conceptual questions above doesn't impugn an instance of actual ownership--at best, it might suggest that social and political philosophers have some work to do in articulating concepts. Maybe not even that. Merely asking these questions is not sufficient to show answers to them are problematic--surely no one seriously thinks, for example, that a landowner must defecate on her land before ownership is, umm, consummated.

If someone seems to own land, it's up to a claimant to the contrary to present evidence they do not own it. If this weren't true, all sorts of havoc would ensue--suppose you had to dig out the deed to your property every time someone walked into your house and claimed it, and then you had to answer a bunch of questions about how the deed was obtained, whether you defecate often enough on the property, etc.

Previously, you made a comment too many people were making assumptions.

No, I never wrote that.

This is but one instance where you ASSUME theft but make no effort to really establish how and why a theft occurred, much less address those questions I presented which are germane to the notion of a theft occurring.

No, this is not correct. I've established how a theft occurred. The First Peoples owned land, which was subsequently taken from them by force or subterfuge. That's an historic fact, and that's all that's needed to establish theft. If you own X, and I take X from you by force or subterfuge, I've just stolen X in a particular form of theft known as robbery. If instead I take it by subterfuge, I have committed fraud or burgulary.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: A Slew of SCOTUS Decisions. PART 1

No, this is not correct. I've established how a theft occurred. The First Peoples owned land, which was subsequently taken from them by force or subterfuge. That's an historic fact, and that's all that's needed to establish theft. If you own X, and I take X from you by force or subterfuge, I've just stolen X in a particular form of theft known as robbery. If instead I take it by subterfuge, I have committed fraud or burgulary.

I disagree. Given the plethora of questions you ask below about the comparatively simple notion of ownership (of land, specifically), it seems downright bizarre that you'd say this.

First, my "its not complicated" remark was in regards to the overall content and structure of the topic. This is not complicated. Second, neither is it complicated for any rational and critical thinking adult to analyze your claims and arrive at those queries I presented. Logically, those queries are a rationally inherent in your claim of "theft" of land from natives. Maybe this is just complicated for YOU but not for other people. Again, the overall subject matter is not complicated and neither is arriving to those questions I presented to you.

This is not factual. When the Europeans arrived, (some of) the First Peoples with whom they had contact let them establish settlements. See, for instance, Francis Jennings, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest, Norton, 1975, pp 105-78, 298-326.

A few points. First, thanks for conceding that the initial colonists did not commit a "theft" of the land since the Indians acquiesced to the creation of settlements on the land.

Now it seems, based on the content of your retort, you are asserting the Indians possessed, controlled, and/or used the land the initial colonists arrived at and established settlements upon. However, your retort inadequately addressed my comment. Re-read what I said. Your retort above does not contest or rebut what I said. I said, "First, Native Americans did not exert dominion, control, possession, and/or use of the entire available land. Indeed, the initial colonists and European people arrived and settled in locations in which the Native Americans did not exert dominion, control, possession, and/or use of the land. There was no theft of this land from the Native Americans.

Were the Indians factually in a position to even give consent, to make a contract regarding the land, to allow or "let" Europeans erect settlements? The previous question is, in part, germane to my initial question of did the Indians actually "control, possess, and/or use" the land they were allowing Europeans to erect "settlements"? Your retort tells me nothing as to whether the Indians controlled, possessed, and/or used the land in which they allowed/permitted or "let" Europeans erect settlements upon. The "let" component may be superficial, illusory, if the Indians did not possess, control, and/or use the land the Europeans erected settlements upon.

So, my point is, in response to your reply, there was no theft because A.) Some, maybe all, of the land the initial colonists established settlements upon was not controlled, possessed, and/or used by the Indians, thereby rendering the Indian's consent to or "letting" settlements on the land as illusory and B.) Based on your comments, the Indians consented anyway.

the Federal Government (not to mention many state governments) established treaties with the First Peoples recognizing their claims to tracts of land, and those treaties were subsequently violated. They remain legally binding documents of which the United States remains in violation--perhaps most famously in the events leading up to the trail of tears, but there are hundreds of examples.

I need to know the specific treaties you are referencing. I cannot properly assess and comment upon a very generic and general invocation to treaties.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: A Slew of SCOTUS Decisions. PART 2

No, this is not correct. I've established how a theft occurred. The First Peoples owned land, which was subsequently taken from them by force or subterfuge. That's an historic fact, and that's all that's needed to establish theft. If you own X, and I take X from you by force or subterfuge, I've just stolen X in a particular form of theft known as robbery. If instead I take it by subterfuge, I have committed fraud or burgulary.

It's a matter of who has the burden of proof, here. Merely asking the conceptual questions above doesn't impugn an instance of actual ownership

Your argument has not established actual ownership.

As things stand, I don't see the relevance of your questions

I am not at all surprised by this revelation. The questions are germane to the dialogue, as I will explain below.

Who knows, and why does it matter? All that matters is that people do actually own land at some point in time (also, why are you even asking about possession, and not ownership?).

1. How does one come to possess land to the exclusion of all other people such that to take the land is theft? What is required to possess land to the exclusion of all others such that to take the land is theft?​

It matters because possession is a component in ascertaining whether a theft has occurred. This is not to suggest possession is necessary for theft but possession certainly is an important factor and component in determining whether a theft occurred. For example, I may not "own" some item or piece of land, and yet if I am in possession of the land or item, then the land can be stolen from me. Conversely, if I am not in possession of land/item I do not own, then no theft can occur.

All that matters is that people do actually own land at some point in time

And I asked two questions about ownership. How is ownership established? What is sufficient for ownership? Need I, or anyone else, merely stand on the land we want and declare the land to be our own? If declaring land to be mine is not sufficient to make the land my own, and possess the land as my own, then what else is required?

Someone must own the land.

Really? Ownership is required? I know quite a few philosophers, especially libertarians, who disagree with any notion of "ownership" of land. Your retort ignores the possibility nobody "owns" land but is rather temporarily in possession of land, and borrowing land, in which the temporary possession and borrowing of land is inexorably extinguished at some point.

at best, it might suggest that social and political philosophers have some work to do in articulating concepts.

You have the burden of "articulating concepts" since you alleged theft as a part of your argument. At this moment, your argument is undeveloped as you have not established A.) Indians possessed land or B.) Indians owned land.

So, your allegation of theft is unsubstantiated, as there has been no philosophical or reasoned argument espoused to support the necessary concepts of possession/ownership which are necessary for a theft to occur and there is a lack of evidence.

If someone seems to own land, it's up to a claimant to the contrary to present evidence they do not own it.

No, if someone "seems" to own land, then its up to the claimant to establish their ownership. It's the claimant's obligation to establish their "seemingly" ownership is not merely "seemingly" but "actual." After all, they are making the affirmative assertion of owning the land. You have shifted the burden from the claimant making an affirmative assertion of "owning" land, to require someone to show a negative. In this instance, the burden is not on the subject alleging a negative (do not own) but the burden is rightfully on the subject asserting an affirmative claim, "I own the land." Just as the burden is not on the subject alleging God does not exist (negative claim) but the burden is on the subject making the affirmative state of God does exist.

 

[NotreDame]

No, this is not correct. I've established how a theft occurred. The First Peoples owned land, which was subsequently taken from them by force or subterfuge. That's an historic fact, and that's all that's needed to establish theft. If you own X, and I take X from you by force or subterfuge, I've just stolen X in a particular form of theft known as robbery. If instead I take it by subterfuge, I have committed fraud or burgulary.

If someone seems to own land, it's up to a claimant to the contrary to present evidence they do not own it. If this weren't true, all sorts of havoc would ensue--suppose you had to dig out the deed to your property every time someone walked into your house and claimed it, and then you had to answer a bunch of questions about how the deed was obtained, whether you defecate often enough on the property, etc.

This demonstrates why the burden is rightfully on the person alleging ownership. They are and should have evidence of ownership and/or possession, i.e. the deed, contract, paperwork, mortgage payment, bank contract, and so forth. I can establish, with evidence, the land/home is lawfully mine or lawfully in my possession, which is why I would have the burden of showing I own/possess the land. No havoc is created here as the trespasser can be removed and in a court of law I can establish my contractual interest in the home to the exclusion of the trespasser.

However, your example above is not analogous to the question of theft of land from the Indians. My land/home ownership is recognized by state and/or federal law, with the effect and force of the laws of the state in which I live, and enforced by the laws in the state in which I live. This is not remotely parallel to whether the Indians possessed and/or owned land such that a theft occurred.

No, this is not correct. I've established how a theft occurred.

No, you have no established a theft occurred, because you have not established the Indians owned the land or possessed the land. You have assumed ownership and/or possession.

The First Peoples owned land

This has not been established. This is an unsubstantiated claim/premise. This statement is assumed as true and factual.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Logically, those queries are a rationally inherent in your claim of "theft" of land from natives.

No, that is not correct. Analogy: clouds exist, and sometimes they disappear. That's my claim. To know whether this is true or false, I don't need to know (or tell anyone else) how to distinguish clouds from, say, the moon. I don't need to know what clouds are made of, and neither does anyone else. I don't need to know the etymology of the term "cloud," or conceptually how a cloud might differ from fog, or an accurate theory of vision that explains how people can see clouds. None of those are "rationally inherent" in my claim. All I need to do to establish the truth of my claim is to go outside, look at the sky, and watch.

Maybe this is just complicated for YOU but not for other people. Again, the overall subject matter is not complicated and neither is arriving to those questions I presented to you.

Seems to me you're in a dilemma. Suppose, as you say, the questions are not complicated. This means, presumably, that the answers are straightforward and easy to give. In that case, they hardly form the basis for much of an objection.

Suppose instead the questions are quite difficult to answer, while the overall subject remains (as you say) simple. Then the questions cannot be directly relevant, since surely nothing complicated can be relevant (in the, um, relevant sense) to something simple. I mean, you've said that we have to answer these questions before we can know a theft occurred. If it isn't easy to answer the questions, then the larger subject to which they relate must be even more complicated, unless you think these are the only relevant questions.

First, thanks for conceding that the initial colonists did not commit a "theft" of the land since the Indians acquiesced to the creation of settlements on the land.

This was never at issue, so it hardly makes sense to say I conceded anything.

Now it seems, based on the content of your retort, you are asserting the Indians possessed, controlled, and/or used the land the initial colonists arrived at and established settlements upon. However, your retort inadequately addressed my comment. Re-read what I said. Your retort above does not contest or rebut what I said. I said, "First, Native Americans did not exert dominion, control, possession, and/or use of the entire available land. Indeed, the initial colonists and European people arrived and settled in locations in which the Native Americans did not exert dominion, control, possession, and/or use of the land. There was no theft of this land from the Native Americans.

My retort? Really?....OK, your claim is factually incorrect--see the source I cited in an earlier post. The First Peoples did exert control over the land settled by Europeans. More importantly, Europeans acknowledged this fact, as they wrote treaties with the First Peoples. You don't negotiate with someone over land they don't own.

Were the Indians factually in a position to even give consent, to make a contract regarding the land, to allow or "let" Europeans erect settlements?

Of course they were. Again, why else would Europeans make treaties with them?

The previous question is, in part, germane to my initial question of did the Indians actually "control, possess, and/or use" the land they were allowing Europeans to erect "settlements"? Your retort tells me nothing as to whether the Indians controlled, possessed, and/or used the land in which they allowed/permitted or "let" Europeans erect settlements upon. The "let" component may be superficial, illusory, if the Indians did not possess, control, and/or use the land the Europeans erected settlements upon.

Sounds to me like you need to brush up on your history.

So, my point is, in response to your reply, there was no theft because A.) Some, maybe all, of the land the initial colonists established settlements upon was not controlled, possessed, and/or used by the Indians, thereby rendering the Indian's consent to or "letting" settlements on the land as illusory and B.) Based on your comments, the Indians consented anyway.

None of A.) is factually correct, and even if it were, it would be irrelevant. The history of the interactions between Europeans and First Peoples stretches from the late 15th through to the present day. Most of the thefts to which I refer ocurred in the 18th and 19th centuries--though there were some before that.

I need to know the specific treaties you are referencing. I cannot properly assess and comment upon a very generic and general invocation to treaties.

We can start with the second treaty of Indian Springs.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It matters because possession is a component in ascertaining whether a theft has occurred.

That doesn't make your questions relevant. You've asked how possession occurs and what must be done to establish it. Again, why should we care? We spot ownership in a way that is only partly open to conceptual analysis. No one, one either side, at the time, disputed the fact that the First Peoples owned the land in question. To do so now seems simply absurd.

This is not to suggest possession is necessary for theft but possession certainly is an important factor and component in determining whether a theft occurred. For example, I may not "own" some item or piece of land, and yet if I am in possession of the land or item, then the land can be stolen from me. Conversely, if I am not in possession of land/item I do not own, then no theft can occur.

That seems false to me. If you own a plot of land, you have a friend come and housesit while you're away, and I, though bribery and deceit, get the county to assign me the deed, I haven't stolen from your friend. I've stolen from you. Feel free to provide a convincing counter-example, if you can.

And I asked two questions about ownership. How is ownership established? What is sufficient for ownership? Need I, or anyone else, merely stand on the land we want and declare the land to be our own? If declaring land to be mine is not sufficient to make the land my own, and possess the land as my own, then what else is required?

You asked two irrelevant questions. If we knew the answers to your questions, we would have a start on a concept of ownership. That doesn't really have anything to do with an actual and acknowledged case of ownership--we are unlikely to fully appreciate all the details of the concept of ownership in this thread anyway. The only relevant facts, then, are that everyone acknowledged ownership by the First Peoples at the time.

You have the burden of "articulating concepts" since you alleged theft as a part of your argument. At this moment, your argument is undeveloped as you have not established A.) Indians possessed land or B.) Indians owned land.

No, I have merely the burden of evidence--see cloud example. See source I previously cited.

No, if someone "seems" to own land, then its up to the claimant to establish their ownership. It's the claimant's obligation to establish their "seemingly" ownership is not merely "seemingly" but "actual."

How is this to be done when two sovereign powers meet, as occurred when the First Peoples met Europeans? Seems as if what you're requiring is impossible, at least in that case. The First Peoples didn't have deeds registered with the crown of England, for example, to land they had been occupying for thousands of years. And why would they? Their only proof is the fact that they were on the land and making use of it, and that's all the proof that was ever needed.

In fact, my case is stronger than that, since the U.S. Government did grant deeds to the First Peoples, which were then subsequently ignored. Again, read up on the history of treaties between Europeans and the First Peoples.

Just as the burden is not on the subject alleging God does not exist (negative claim) but the burden is on the subject making the affirmative state of God does exist.

The two cases are not analogous. Given that all land is owned, it's quite easy for someone to come up with evidence I don't own land--that evidence can only come in the form of a counter-claim to other ownership. The same is true of the land occupied by the First Peoples. They had established civilization upon it, and had borders drawn that apportioned and saturated all the land there is, with some minor exceptions (such as the swamps in Florida).

I can establish, with evidence, the land/home is lawfully mine or lawfully in my possession, which is why I would have the burden of showing I own/possess the land. No havoc is created here as the trespasser can be removed and in a court of law I can establish my contractual interest in the home to the exclusion of the trespasser.

You're missing the point of the example. The trespasser would have to be taken seriously. If we subjected actual owners to the questions you've asked every time someone questioned their seeming ownership, of course there would be havoc. To be taken seriously in the actual world, however, the trespasser must present some reason to doubt the case of seeming ownership.

This has not been established. This is an unsubstantiated claim/premise. This statement is assumed as true and factual.

See, again, the source I cited.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Correction. In post 136, above, I wrote:

The two cases are not analogous. Given that all land is owned, it's quite easy for someone to come up with evidence I don't own land...

That should read:

The two cases are not analogous. Given that all land is owned, it's quite easy for someone to come up with evidence I don't own land when it's true I don't own the land in question.

The point being that, if I'm in the normal course of minding my own business in my own house, if someone just walks up and says "this ain't your house!" I, and society at large, should ignore them unless they can produce evidence I might not own the house in which I am dwelling. To require the landowner to respond to every skeptical exclamation is a bit absurd.