Property Rights Ought Not Exist in the United States

My opponent has sought to do away with my definition of ownership by providing another definition. While his definition is differently worded, it is still the same in spirit. According to the definition which he has recently proposed, Ownership is possession with the right to transfer possession to others. I repost from the my previous argument, 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.As we can see, both definitions are saying the same thing. Having the right to transfer possession is associated with some legal system i.e. a legal right of possession.I had posted this particular wording of the definition of ownership because it incorporates the fact that rights are associated with some legal theory.He then makes a baseless statement,” my definition links more directly to justice.”He then brings up the topic of theft even though he believes that humans have no inherent right to claim ownership over objects on the Earth. The concept of theft is only meaningful if property rights exist.My opponent made a statement: the United States government DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to grant U.S. citizens property rights. This is his opinion. The theory on which the U.S. system is based, does allow them to grant themselves rights. It would be best if my opponent added the prefix –according to my (lddebater540) theory- when he speaks of rights. I was not adding a similar prefix because when I spoke of rights, I spoke in context of the most relevant theory to this debate i.e. the one which is currently used in the U.S. My opponent’s case can be divided into the following points:1. Property rights do not exist because the concept is meaningless(his first contention)Definitions have already explained the valid concept of property rights.2. Arguing about theft. This contention is pointless because theft is only meaningful when property rights exist, and if they exist – I win.3. People cannot grant themselves property rights because property rights are against this notion.At this juncture it becomes necessary to state the theory associated with the rights.I explain with the help of an example.There are two people –person A and person BThere is a piece of land currently in possession of person B.According to theory of person A, person A can seize possession of the land currently in possession of person B. Person A seizes possession of the land possessed by person B.Then according to the theory of person A, it is not theft (by definition), thus there is no contradiction in the concept of property rights with respect to theory of person A. This is true even if the theory of person B stipulates that person A has committed a theft. Similarly, there is no reason for any contradiction in the theory of person B.Clearly, people can grant themselves property rights because property rights are not against this notion.Ultimately, justice depends on definitions of right and wrong. These definitions depend on your ethical theory. Since it depends on definitions, it is pointless to argue injustice without specifying a theory.Lastly, when I said produce proof, I was not talking about a map of America shaded in different colours. That’s like showing a picture of the moon, colouring it pink and saying Neil Armstrong occupied the entire moon.Since I have used my source to make valid arguements, VOTE FOR CON!Thank you.