its subjective but the question is if its consistent with a certain set of principles or not

a private court could rule something which is inconsistent to the philosophy, and it would have ruled "wrong". it would be settled but you could still make the case that the ownership is not legitimate

regardless it follows to say, that what is your private property is subjective, no? I mean, its whatever your "rightfully" own, by whatever means fit your definition of rightfully. And rightful ownership is subjective. Therefore, your private property is subjective.

the courts does not determine reality, they're just supposed to rule according to reality

well not quite

if a criminal comes in and takes the property by force, he is de facto owning it, objectively, since he has exclusive control over it

subjectively illegitimate ownership, but actual ownership nonetheless

i define ownership as the exclusive use and control over something

okay, can we redefine that as possession, and use ownership for rightful ownership?

sure ok

in that case the entire idea of ownership is a social construct

do you disagree?

i don't disagree with those definitions

so then, technically, i define what your private property is. as you define mine. Since if there is just one person in an area, then they can claim all the land to be their's. But once a second person shows up, that claim means nothing unless verified by the second person

what do you mean by it means nothing?

what is it supposed to mean?

well, i can say that something you have is mine. but if you don't agree and give it back, doesn't mean much does it?

yeah it does. one of us could have a more philosophically consistent argument than the other. one could be in the right and the other could be in the wrong, depending on what standards you apply

it could practically not make a difference to the consequences if one person is stronger than the other

if thats what you mean

but it could "mean" a lot about factual reality

what i mean, is just making a claim does not make something my property. either you agree, and give it to me. or you disagree and its yours unless i take it by force

right, the consequences depend on if property principles are respected by others or not

right, i just realized i missed a piece of information i should have clarified. If two people claim to have whole, singular ownership, i consider that object or land unowned until an agreement is reached, regardless of who has possession.

alright

so, in the two party system, if person A has a chair, and person B claims it his chair, and person A disagrees, then there is no owner, as its "rightful" owner is currently in dispute by all involved parties, and still has no owner until agreement is reached and there is no longer a conflict.

hence why i say a claim has no meaning without the other parties endorsement

therefore, person A's property is defined by what person B agrees to, as anything that person B does not agree to, is no one's property, it is simply an object in someone's possession.

and without person B, then there is no need for private property

the rightfulness doesnt depend on if you opponent agrees or not, it depends on what standards you apply as a spectator

just a person disagreeing with your ownership doesnt make it illegitimate

in the other person's eye it is

yeah if you choose to apply the other persons standards

but as we concluded, rightful is subjective

true, but even if those people share the same set of standards, rightful is still subjective

how do you figure?

at least, outside of rightful simply meaning current possession

if the standards are that the house should go to the next of kin, then someone who isnt next of kin claiming the property would be wrongful according to the standards

unless the person claiming to be next of kin, has not been proven to be next of kin

even if it is, infact next of kin

okay so a deeper gray zone