Property Rights Ought Not Exist in the United States

I provide some more definitions: Ownership: legal right of possession http://dictionary.reference.com... Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent’s contention 1: Property rights should not exist in the United States because nobody has the right to claim any of the Earth's resources as their own. Rebut: A person is said to own an item when he is in possession of the item and his government permits him to possess the item. The people of United States have given themselves a constitution and through it (directly/indirectly) have given themselves certain rights. Among these rights is the right to own certain goods. When a group of people give themselves property rights, It essentially means that they will allow each other to possess certain items and the use/transfer of these items will follow certain rules. There are provisions to deal with cases when these rules regarding use/ transfer. These rights arise because of a mutual desire to prevent undesirable interference in each other’s lives in a manner which would be to the detriment of their quality of life and to their ability to survive. These rights are only limited by the ability of the group to enforce them. These rights only become meaningful when are enforced. It is meaningless to say that-“humans have no inherent right to claim ownership over objects on the Earth” because rights are associated with a philosophical theory as opposed to being an intrinsic quality of humans. The people of the United States benefit from these rights. It is therefore beneficial for them to give to themselves these rights and safeguard them.__________________________________________________________________________ My opponents contention2: If we assume that humans have some inherent right to claim ownership over terrestrial goods, this right still does not justify property rights because it implies communal, rather than individual, use…….even if we pretend that humans have the right to use terrestrial resources for some undetermined reason, this right was given to humanity as a whole, and not to a particular individual. Rebut: Again, rights are associated with some legal system based on some theory. The legal system of the United States (given by the people to themselves) does give property rights to individuals . Your statement: “the rights to use the good exclusively/use the good to earn income/transfer the good to others cannot exist.” The rights to use the good exclusively/use the good to earn income/transfer the good to others can exist because these rights do exist._____________________________________________________________________ My opponent’s contention3: The United States government has obtained lands from the Native Americans through trickery and force; hence there should be no property rights.Rebut: This simply implies that the Native Americans have a better claim/right to certain land in the United States. Furthermore this claim gains meaning only when property rights do exist, i.e. if property rights did not exist then the United States could not have stolen their (Native Americans) land because it did not(or rather could not) belong to them in the first place. It is thus in the interest of the Native Americans to establish property rights so that they can claim their land. Furthermore the Native Americans did not occupy the entirety of present day (If there is proof to the contrary I suggest u produce it and I will concede this point) U.S .While they may have a claim on certain area, it does not mean property rights should not exist throughout the United States. VOTE FOR ME! Thank you.