When is it morally ok to claim something as your property?

[blahface]

Where are the lines drawn on this exactly? I'd assume everyone here would agree that if someone bought stolen property, the guy whom the property was stolen from would be the legitimate owner and it wouldn't be the guy who bought the property. However, what if a generation has passed and the guy who bought the stolen property has passed it down to his son? Would it legitimately belong to the son, or would it belong to the family of whom it was stolen from in the first place? If it just keeps being passed down, will it ever legitimately belong to the descendants of the guy who bought the stolen property?

I think most people would agree that a typical farmer in United States would have a legitimate claim on the land he owns under the law. American land however, was originally owned by Native Americans (although they technically didn't believe land could be owned) and it was stolen from them. If it wasn't stolen directly by the ancestors of the farmer, it was still stolen property that eventually made it's way to the farmer.

At what point do the recipients of stolen property eventually become the morally legitimate owner? If we were to all give back the land we legally own to the descendants of the Native Americans that originally owned the land that would create a whole new set of problems. Does it become legitimate when correcting for the past misdeeds causes more problems than it solves? If so, do we still need to provide some sort of reparations?

Lets analyze another scenario. What if a multinational corporation fleshes out a deal with a dictator for resource rights from his state. Does the dictator who is holds down his people with an iron fist have a legitimate claim on his state's natural resources? Is the deal the multinational corporation made morally binding? If there is a revolution, does the new government have any responsibility to uphold the deal? What if the corporation put in a sizable investment on building the infrastructure to extract the resources? Should the corporation at least be reimbursed? Or, is it the corporation's fault for knowingly making a deal with a thief?

[DarkArk]

Let's start with the corporate one first since I think that is easier.

Yes, the dictator is the legitimate government of the nation at the time. Brutality does not remove that legitimacy, so yes the dictator holds the property rights to whatever resources are in the state. We could question the ethics of a corporation that willingly deals with a brutal tyrant, but seeing as how many of them are amoral they're within the rights of doing business to make deals with whomever so long as it does not violate the law. A revolution makes this tricky. If the new government says that they will keep all previous obligations of the former government (a la Russia with the Soviet Union) then yes, they have a responsibility to uphold the deal. I'd say at the least any new government should offer the corporation compensation if they do take the property or resource access away. In many ways this will help the new government not the least as being seen to pay off its debts. Though Iran in the 50s isn't an exact example of this, it's a reasonable worst case scenario depending on the wealth of the resources.

As for your second question, I'd say go with the legal system of the current rulers. The people who had their land stolen are likely never going to feel that the new owners are legitimate. Moral quandaries on issues like this get us nowhere. If sufficient proof of ownership can be provided then I'd say reimbursement is the best course of action.

[Enigma]

As regards to land taken from the Natives, it is basically spoils of war. The U.S. and Canadian governments expanded their respective borders and basically seized their lands. There have been instances of Natives fighting back but they lost.

If every nation were to give back land belonging to the original owners, every nation in the world would be cut up into little pieces.

[Elheru Aran]

You also have to consider that in many cases the 'original owners' simply don't exist anymore. There are thousands of tribes and cultures the world over who have disappeared either naturally (dying out, migration to other areas, becoming mixed with other tribes/cultures) or otherwise (massacre, forced intermarriage, disease epidemics, etc). When that's the case, you can't exactly 'give it back', can you? Sure, you can feel awful about it and maybe make a few monuments and what not but honestly there's no way for the 'original owners' to repossess the land.

This is particularly true in the case of many, many Native American tribes, as well as many European people groups, although in some cases you will find the descendants (actual or false) of those groups asking for their land back; see Basque separatists in Spain for an example, although it could be argued that they have a more valid case than, say, a member of the Sioux tribe asking for Manhattan back (Plains tribe from the Dakotas coming from New York? I don't think so).

[PeZook]

With civil law, the matter is simple: there are statutes and regulations concerning this very thing, clearly stating when you can claim ownership of given property and under what circumstances etc.

With international law, well...unfortunately, international law is often nothing but jungle law. So if the dictator you posited is deposed by, say, a popular uprising, and the new revolutionary government nationalizes all assets of the corporation, there's fuck all the corporation can do.

...unless it has some congressmen on payroll and they lobby for a US military intervention, the Marines depose the new government and put a US friendly dictator in place again.

In short, the realistic response is that the legitimate owner of land or resources is the one who can hold on to it long enough for everybody else to stop bothering to take it away.

[SpaceMarine93]

When the guy you are stealing from is dead and technically no longer owns the property?

[Batman]

If the person no longer technically owns it, it's also technically no longer stealing, and most societies have rules for what happens with a deceased person's belongings after their death. Typically, barring instructions by the deceased to the contrary, ownership of their stuff passes to their descendants and/or relatives.

[LaCroix]

Legally, there is one way to get ownership:

Picking up a derelict object (something that has been consciously given up, e.g. thrown away) makes you instantly the owner. This does not apply to lost objects or a deceased's possession.

But there IS adverse possession.
The settlers came and found land that wasn't marked as someone's possession, nor was it obvious that it was in someone's possession, nor did the owner show up to set things straight, so this could apply. They did not (themselves) drive away the prior owners, and claimed that piece of land in good faith. So after owning it for a couple of decades, they are considered the new owners.

A recent example

[Enigma]

Legally, there is one way to get ownership:

Picking up a derelict object (something that has been consciously given up, e.g. thrown away) makes you instantly the owner. This does not apply to lost objects or a deceased's possession.

But there IS adverse possession.
The settlers came and found land that wasn't marked as someone's possession, nor was it obvious that it was in someone's possession, nor did the owner show up to set things straight, so this could apply. They did not (themselves) drive away the prior owners, and claimed that piece of land in good faith. So after owning it for a couple of decades, they are considered the new owners.

A recent example

Depending where you are, if a person takes possession of a piece of land for a lengthy period of time without interference by the actual owner, that person can claim "squatters rights" and the land now becomes the property of the squatter. Doesn't work if within that time period the actual owner is trying to have that person removed.

[LaCroix]

Depending where you are, if a person takes possession of a piece of land for a lengthy period of time without interference by the actual owner, that person can claim "squatters rights" and the land now becomes the property of the squatter. Doesn't work if within that time period the actual owner is trying to have that person removed.

Which is called "adverse possession" in legalese...

[Andrew J.]

Where are the lines drawn on this exactly? I'd assume everyone here would agree that if someone bought stolen property, the guy whom the property was stolen from would be the legitimate owner and it wouldn't be the guy who bought the property.

No. If A steals from B and then sells to C, C is the legitimate owner as long as he made the purchase in good faith (in other words, if there was nothing about the sale that would make a reasonable person think the property was stolen). B may recover the cost of the property from A.

[Darth Holbytlan]

No. If A steals from B and then sells to C, C is the legitimate owner as long as he made the purchase in good faith (in other words, if there was nothing about the sale that would make a reasonable person think the property was stolen). B may recover the cost of the property from A.

Bullshit.

Well, I'm sure it varies in some detail based on the jurisdiction that the sale occurs, but even the most trivial of google searches turns up nothing but links saying the exact opposite. The property still belongs to A and can be seized from C to be returned. If C avoids being prosecuted for receiving stolen property, they still have to sue B for the lost value of the goods.

[PeZook]

And of course since America isn't the world, it requires mentioning...

In Napoleonic/Continental law tradition it mostly works exactly as Andrew described: as long as the buyer operated in good faith, he takes ownership of the thing he bought, regardless of its prior status.

It doesn't apply to fixed property, of course, which is government by its own set of special rules.

[Batman]

Legally, there is one way to get ownership:
Picking up a derelict object (something that has been consciously given up, e.g. thrown away) makes you instantly the owner.

Technically, depending on where you live, even that doesn't always work. In Germany, until and unless it's picked up by the garbage collectors, your garbage is still legally your property (and IIRC after that becomes the legal property of the entity doing the collection/the eventual procession/elimination of the garbage so would legally still be stealing).

[Darth Holbytlan]

And of course since America isn't the world, it requires mentioning...

In Napoleonic/Continental law tradition it mostly works exactly as Andrew described: as long as the buyer operated in good faith, he takes ownership of the thing he bought, regardless of its prior status.

True enough. (I assume, I have little familiarity with the Napoleonic law tradition.) But Andrew J. has a US location, so I doubt that's what he was referring to.

[Andrew J.]

And of course since America isn't the world, it requires mentioning...

In Napoleonic/Continental law tradition it mostly works exactly as Andrew described: as long as the buyer operated in good faith, he takes ownership of the thing he bought, regardless of its prior status.

True enough. (I assume, I have little familiarity with the Napoleonic law tradition.) But Andrew J. has a US location, so I doubt that's what he was referring to.

I may have conflated voidable title doctrine about outright theft with voidable title doctrine about bounced checks, although if the first buyer knows the check won't clear it amounts to the same thing.

[Darth Holbytlan]

I may have conflated voidable title doctrine about outright theft with voidable title doctrine about bounced checks, although if the first buyer knows the check won't clear it amounts to the same thing.

I see where you're coming from. The difference is that a thief doesn't have a voidable title, rather no title at all. So while the good-faith purchaser C might obtain a good title from B, the holder a voidable title, C can't do the same from B, the thief.

I suppose the difference between B fraudulently buying goods with a bad check and outright stealing them is that in the former case A did not expect to keep title, so getting other compensation if they have been sold on is not considered to be as much of a problem.