Your "just system" is the reason why there are a lot of endangered and extinct species right now.
The system is just for people not for animals. Animals don't have rights.
Sorry, I don't understand your point.
Your objection was purely utilitarian (tragedy of the commons). I am looking for moral, deontological objections.
Pretty asinine. If you have 100 boar, first guy kills 60, nobody gets to hunt there anymore or the numbers will never get back to 100.
If anything it should not be one tribe assigning property bounds to the other tribes.
It should be each tribe and their peoples coming together and making mutual sound contracts on where they should hunt because that is the best way to social cooperation and prosperity.
As for a deontological viewpoint, if there is land area z with tribes x and y, then if tribe x discovers land area z first, then land x has the right to claim an enforceable boundary area.
That is, tribe x cannot come in and simply claim 1000 square kilometers of a piece of land just because it says so. He has to enforce this claim and mark the appropriate boundaries. Tribe x and y may even have to go further to arbitrate the boundaries of land or else use coercion/violence towards each other to attain their claims.
And so from this a utilitarian argument stems that the reason why property rights exist is not because of self ownership, but because it is the best method for social cooperation and harmony/production. Humans often tend to choose things which work best and benefit the most.
I believe that property rights only exist if they are be able to be enforceable by the property holder. --> While i can claim my house as a property, and certainly enforce this claim (if it has not been previously steaded, or claimed by anyone else), i cannot claim the whole city because i cannot enforce such claim.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”