(Return to main path )

Dee, I think you are starting with the wrong set of assumptions here. You think it is obvious that someone can do something that makes them the owner of the land (or other natural resources) in a very strong sense. You need to back up and recognize that that assumption is really quite unusual historically. It's quite modern, and could almost be described as parochial.

Just to give you a different perspective, I want to include here a quote that one historian included in his comments on the Native American concept of property:

My friend, it seems you lay claim to the grass my horses have eaten because you had enclosed it with a fence: now tell me, who caused the grass to grow? Can you make the grass grow? ... the grass which grows out of the earth is common to all; the game in the woods is common to all. Say, did you ever eat venison and bear's meat?-- "Yes, very often" -- Well, and did you ever hear me or any other Indian complain about that? No; then be not disturbed at my horse having eaten only once of what you call your grass, though the grass my horses did eat, in like manner as the meat you eat, was given to the Indians by the Great Spirit. Besides, if you will but consider, you will find that my horse did not eat all your grass. [quoted in C. A. Weslager The Delaware Indians: A History, p. 37]

With all your talk about the state of nature, all you are really doing is universalizing one modern concept of property and ignoring all those people to whom it seems absurd.