[bryanlarsen]

That Manhattan Island was sold for $24 shows how unnatural land ownership is. The natives making the sale had some concept of ownership, but did not comprehend that they were giving up perpetual, fully exclusive rights to the land.

[peteradio]

I don't understand this. Presumably the natives thought it was a good deal? Or were they sold a lie? Like "yea buddy come back anytime?" Either way doesn't preclude that we can peaceably transfer ownership. I mean if the natives are pissed because they got hoodwinked then the rule doesn't need to be "noone shalt own land" it could be "don't fraudulently do business". If we are saying nobody owns land then I suspect that means I'm crammed into a tin can and somebody out there owns a whole fuck load of land.

[bryanlarsen]

You asserted that "Land ownership makes sense to beasts and man". If so, then saying "I'll buy this land for $24" is a straightforward transaction where being hoodwinked is basically impossible.

I "own" 1/6 of an acre of land. But there are many things I'm not allowed to do to my property. So do I truly own it?

I possess the right to do certain things to my property, and possess the right exclude others from doing certain things. I can resell that right. Those rights would be largely unaffected whether you call what I have ownership or not.

In practicality ownership of land is a semantic game, but it's an important piece of semantics.