OK then, so it sounds like a discussion on the foundation of property rights; how land came to be owned and why people have a right to own it. (I still think the questions are wierd; as they insinuate a claim I say is false - but then I had a reputation for being too literal and argued, I mean debated, stuff like this with my profs all the time).

It occurs to me that property ownership is purely a societal norm based on the living conditions and means of livelihood of any given culture. A nomadic/wanderer group may not recognize any human right to own property at all, a hunter/gatherer group might recognize the right to own land as a group, and the farmers/settlers recognize the right of individuals to personally own a piece of Earth.

I'd say the biggest clash is likely when people from the different groups run into each other. When like groups meet, such as 2 nomads or 2 farmers, they have an agreed upon set of rules to go by. They might not agree, possibly to the point of going to war, but they have the same agreed upon concept of property ownership. But when a nomad meets a farmer, a fundamental discord is exposed.

The story you were given sounds like an attempt to describe the first time such a discord occured; perhaps the first time a farmer (who's law is that I planted the crop therefore it is mine) had his crop stolen by a nomad (who's law is I found the crop therefore it is mine).

I think the key to why the land was valuable is because someone had an investment in it - the planted crop. The farmer and the nomad see it as being equally valuable, but the farmer sees it as his own and the nomad sees it as anybody's for the taking. And so improvement to the land (or even potential improvement to the land) seems to be the key to it's value.

I don't think who in particualr owns it, or having a fence around it makes any difference in the value (other than the fence as a physical improvement - and therefore an investment - in the property).

Not sure I answered the question of why we have the right to own land to begin with, but the idea that a person or group would invest in the value of property by planting a crop or building a structure without being guaranteed continued and ongoing use (enjoying the fruits of their labor) would strike most people nowadays as not very logical.

So, yes; we own land because it allows for a stable environment in which to invest, improve, and lead to fun things like ski resorts, subdivisions, and Dairy Queens. All owed to and dependent on the person who planted the first garden.

Ta-Da!

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley