[BluffTHIS!]

BigLaw,

This is interesting so let's continue. To recapitulate where you are now:

1) adverse possession is a valid method of property acquisition conditioned on being:
-a) actual possession
-b) open/publicly known
-c) exclusive
-d) for a given time period
-e) held adversely against all other claims
-f) abandonment is defined as "the failure to assert one’s ownership rights against a squatter or other invader of the property within a reasonable time"

2) there is a time period (reasonble time) one must possess same to justify same;
-a) that time period is the same for both objects/whatever goods you can take with you and for land
-b)The time period has to be long enough for owners or potential owners to assert their ownership, but short enough that owners cannot sit on their rights indefinitely. It is a balance between protecting the owner’s security and the new possessor’s developed interest in the property.
-c) the time periods for both adverse possession and reasonable assertion of ownership begins with adverse possession.

3) you have the right to "police" that adverse possession as did the "first takers" of wilderness or whatever, including the use of violent force as such is necessary to enforce property rights.

4) there is a limit on how much property one can adversely possess and retain which is determined by the conditions justifying adverse possession and due to the fact that one can only ACTUALLY possess and use a relatively small piece of property exclusively to others’ use AND continuously for a reasonable period (farmer can only plow so many acres). However you can sell any excess at any time. Also one cannot use an agent/employee to expand the limit.




More questions:

X) Regarding your answer to who determines what a reasonable time period is you said:

"I think a political community can fix a time period within the range of reasonable times"

So are you saying the definition depends on others, and if so, on a unanimity of such opinion, or a simple majority or what?

XI) You said in answer to my clock question on squatting:

"Yes, but any private property regime usually sanctions trespass with fines, etc. especially against “land pirates” or those who actively try to take others’ land in this way. But in principle if you were to stay in my house long enough you could gain ownership.
But think about how impractical a move this would be for you if you knew there was an owner who may or may not come back within the stipulated time period. Any improvements you make to the property, any investment you make in bringing your stuff to the property or maintaining the property could be lost at any moment. Could you live like that for 5, 10, 30 years? This move would give you little security unless you prefer a nomadic lifestyle."


There seems to be a conflict here between your assertion of a right to squat on land which is at the moment unoccupied, and your saying that to so squat would be trespass that would be sanctioned. Since you say the clock starts with adverse possession, i.e. no necessity of a "waiting period", how do you reconcile this so as to formulate a consistent principle? If you have a right to squat, then it can't be tresspass, unless there is a further limitation upon squatting.

XII) Regarding #4 as modified with your "no agent" caveat, doesn't this mean that you don't have a right to squat on any land when you currently have as much or more than you can actually use/work yourself? Thus you could never have an excess to sell unless you received it as a gift or bought it. Basically this question boils down to whether adverse possession of "abandoned" land can *only* be done when it is necessary to survival (if you say you might have exhausted a certain tract of land so it can't be worked enough to survive, then you would have to first dispose of it prior to finding new land to squat on).