Spiral Architect

As sNerd said Rand never said nor implied “Meritocracy” but I also remember a quote where she once remarked that such a thing was discounted immediately due to “the last 5 letters in the name”.

A philosophy of Objectivism that distorts itself and compromises its principles for the sake of wider acceptance is not what I want.  Have children and raise them rationally, that is one method that can help gain some additional practitioners without compromising.

1. Pointing out that the Peso has improved 700% against the dollar does not support the idea that Mexico has devalued the Peso.  If anything it is an argument for US devaluation of the dollar.  Now if you want to argue that the US Fed is causing malinvestment and economic issues, that is a reasonable argument and in line with free economic policy.  Stopping the Fed from dollar devaluation would fix a lot of issues beyond this discussion.  
2. Corn is not an argument against trade, but subsidies.  I agree  that US subsidies policy causes malinvestment and the ripple effect is distorting our economy.  But the issue is reducing Government intervention in the economy at home. 
3. Mexico purses fiat money policy for the same reason all Governments, to avoid the integrity required by real reserves.  All “workers” are poorer in every nation because printed money always benefits those who get it first (the banks) who have non-inflated purchasing power, and as it trickles down through the economy the last to get it suffer through the inflation and are poorer by the time any new printed money reaches them. This has nothing to do with trade and is an argument against fiat money.  
4.  I agree NAFTA should be renegotiated into a proper free-trade agreement, but that was neither stated nor is an issue with this discussion.  In fact if we fixed everything you mention in your last post immigration would increase since we would have more wealth and jobs here and Mexico would still house the same criminal Government that makes the fundamentals of life, let alone thriving, untenable. 
5. That is point: Corruption is that it is the real issue.  It is a moral choice and a primary.  Governments are not corrupt because of policy, but policies are corrupt because the thinking of statesmen is corrupt to criminal.  People are not fleeing Mexico due to corn subsidies and trade agreements which pushed out a benign Government .  They are fleeing to escape conditions that exist due to a criminal government that threatens their ability to live. Conditions created by the Mexican Government and perpetuated by that Government.  

Something is property because I created it and will dispose of it for my own personal reasons.  I think - I work to bring that thought into reality.  The product of that thought is an object I plan to use to advance my life.  I have property in the object since my ability to thrive is dependent on acting on my thoughts by disposing of that object. It can be unique or common, it doesn't matter.  It's availability is not an issue ethically, only economic. Something is property because it is mine. It can be the only one in the world or I can craft a pebble like a billion others.  It is mine.  Of value to me. Scarcity only becomes relevant if I choose to trade it.   A unique item may be worth a lot.  A pebble will likely only hold value to me. 
I give the object value, not any random attribute it has in nature.  
If anything the scarcity argument is only reinforcing the fact property is a moral concept devoid of any measurement, which demonstrates the full evil of the situation.  Wealth has to be produced before it can be looted.  Man's mind is the source of all values and the ultimate vale that creates other values.  How despotic is it then to preempt the welfare state looting and go straight for the source and take a man's thoughts?
 
 

While it's not your responsibility to fix anyone else's problems for them, you should try to discuss these things with anyone that really matters to you; self-censorship is just as selfless as making yourself a 24/7 Crusader for Capitalism.
When you censor yourself on a frequent or chronic basis, you end up damaging your own grasp of what's true and what's worthwhile (see this). So it's in your best interest to have these hard conversations, if you'll otherwise end up having to suffer that.
And if you try to talk to someone close to you (such as your parents or best friend) about it and find that they aren't interested in the true or the good -that they actually practice their evil ideas and intend to continue doing so- then you know what they're worth, according to the standard of their impact on your own life.
 
Personally, I tend towards the opposite extreme sometimes; towards trying to fix every single person in the world. However, as SN pointed out, that's not truly selfish either.
The right approach is to help those who deserve it, and to Hell with anyone else.
 
PS:
 
I find that the best approach, with Skeptics, is to take their questions seriously and to request the same courtesy for your answers. It consistently demonstrates who's honestly confused and who's just wasting your time.

This nastiness coming from the right wing propagandists just makes me support Planned Parenthood more.
 

 
Doesn't it seem like everyone in the US media has lost its mind lately, btw? Everywhere I look, there's some jackass raging about something made up. The left is raging about imaginary racist murdering cops every chance they get (the last "incident" they latched on to is just pathetic), the right is manufacturing stories about an imaginary illegal immigrant crime wave and the imaginary sales of imaginary baby parts.
 
It's embarrassing. Political bias has always been there, on every network and in every paper, but now they seem to have just lost touch with reality completely.

A few points:
1. I think Ayn Rand's work is fairly influential in American politics, and she is part of the reason why the US is a pretty nice place to live in.

2. Politics is not the only area in which Objectivism can be helpful in improving the world around you. After all, Ayn Rand's philosophy is about a lot more than just politics. I think the most important "fight for Objectivism" takes place in our personal lives, not on the political stage or in the media. You can "fight for Objectivism" by surrounding yourself with rational people. I don't mean Objectivists, I just mean people who are willing and able to be rational in their lives, and in their interactions with you. That might not be a huge win for Objectivism on a global scale, but it is an important win for it in YOUR world. Which is what matters.

3. When it comes to politics, even if the current strategy for trying to create a better world for ourselves really is doomed to failure, that's not a reason to give up trying to create a better world. That's a reason for changing the strategy.

What would be the alternative you're suggesting? Just do nothing? Never talk about politics, take no interest in it, just ignore what's going on in that realm? Why? How would that make your life better?

The reason is that Atheism is really secondary to the epistemology of the parties involved at best or frankly just an add-on.  Liberals and conservatives are brothers by a different mother and while they argue over who had the better mother there is always the father they have in common.  In this case  they agree on a super a priori that we are derivatives.  Conservatives generally see it is a God while modern Liberals see it as society.  We are either children of God or cells of a collective.  Yes, one is a omniscient consciousness while the other is an incompetent unconsciousness but they do have personalities (Gospel or Multiculturalism) and are the source for ethical questions.  Politically, both are the justification for right and wrong.  
 
Each side rejects the other sides a priori in specifics but agree in abstract principle.  Conservatives claim to hate big government and collectivism but happy enforce their standard of good through increased government and create laws against specific groups (Marriage Laws).  The liberals generally accept separation of State and Religion and detest having someone's ethics imposed on them (don't tell me who I can get married to!) but will turbo protest anyone who says the politically incorrect thing or demand a baker be forced to bake them a cake. Neither side can see they are doing the same thing in principle, just opposite sides in detail.  
 
From there it is easy to see that if a liberal rejects religion and God due to a lack of data the philosophy is still there to support his acceptance of a new "greater good".  After all, God and good are separated only by one vowel and interchangeable to the mystic.  In fact without reason or an understanding of the virtue of independence it is highly likely that a liberal will simply fill the vacuum where their "I" should have been with a new singular entity where he can once again be a unit of a great Go(o)d that tells him what to value.  
 
In the same vain I would see the growing progressive movements in the world take on a religious tint for the same reason.  
 
And this is simply an epistomological look.  I'm sure someone can do the same thing by just reviewing both sides from the altruistic ethic system as well.  

With all respect, and I mean that since I don't think I've ever disagreed with you, but I think you're missing the big picture.  
 
The author could have written the article about anything and anyway he wanted.  This is the argument and approach he chose. 
 
In this case the article frames and discusses the issue in a way of ultimately sanctioning the fundamentals of egalitarianism.  The title does this alone.  The altruistic premise throughout the peace is left unquestioned.  
 
The "family unit" is not some member of the non-entity "society" that is a viable discussion of ethical purpose, "goods", or political outputs.  As far as ethics, goods, and politics the family or society do not exist.  Individuals do and individual choices are not subject to collective group debate or worse - justification.  Yes, he disagrees with some conclusions but the author intentionally put them in there in the first place to discuss then white washes the issue with compromised agreement on the collectivist ethical concern but not the concrete solution he held up.
 
The ethical duty that an individual should be concerned with the welfare of others is not questioned and all the article does is say at best: this will not produce the right results.  From here the compromise is between and one step closer.  The author endorsed the ethics, put out policy ideas that are extreme egalitarianism, then backed off the extreme in but left the middle ground for us to lurch towards while handing them the rhetoric high ground.
 
This is how we have slid from Capitalism to a mixed economy to the Welfare State and it is how we will continue to the endgame.  
 
My reaction was knee jerk enough my man! 

To answer the OP:
 
Two reasons:
 
1. It's a tough issue to openly discuss since public discussions usually revolve around the media piling on someone for saying something "not correct", and more importantly:
 
2. Guilt.  Original Sin is alive and well and the collectivists have made this the secular version of it. 

the issue is that it's not an either/or scenario as no one can practice empericism or subjectivism 100%.  
 
Empiricists might based things on concretes but if they totally abandoned abstractions they would function on the level of an animal.  If subjectivists didn't embrace facts or certainty then they couldn't even form a coherent argument or thoug

I will say this once - Try that whining and card backhanded crap from the last several sentences once more to dodge the issue with smear tactics and I'll wash my hands of this. 
 
I am not some altruist intellectual missionary out to cure people's defective thinking.  Your on this private forum discussing ideas related to it's philosophy.  
 
And if you are going to call me a collectivist for refusing to judge people by group definitions you are not even trying.  At all.  
 
As for this case - I am reporting facts as described to the grand jury. It is valid for a grand jury to review this case in case the cop was wrong.  This jury, which is local civilians, reviewed this case and agreed with that fact.  It's not my opinion but documented fact. 
 
The office was charged by the civilian and the officer defended himself. 
 
If thugs don't want to get shot then I recommend they don't charge police officers.  If I charged a police officer I would expect to be shot, which is why I would not do that. Not rocket science.  
 
The only thing racist about all of this is those who actually pointed out the race and treat random facts of skin color or zip code of birth as being relevant to basic facts of reality. 

D'oh! 
 
I blame a long day at work and a lack of caffeine... 

Communism in space?  Tribalism in a high tech necessitated environment?  
 
That should work out just peachy... 

As a big fan of music I can tell you after too many hours of driving on the road and chewing on music as a value, I can say that music projects the emotions of the writer as well as the listener independently.  The artist expresses ideas and the listener does another.  Many times the great artists actually bring you into their world, for example Frank Sinatra had the ability to make you feel what he was feeling. 
 
But other times the listener sees their ideas or emotions.  As Dee Snider put it bluntly to the Senate Committee in the 80's, "I wrote a song about fear of surgery and that is what I hear.  Mrs. Gore went looking for S&M so she found it." 
 
I am a hard rock and heavy metal fan, for example.  Some people hear thrash and think it is anger or noise. I hear the sound of the industrial revolution and a "Who is going to stop me?" vision that makes we want to win.  To each his own as it reflects your values. 

If you look at it at it's root cause you have it reversed, although they feed each other like any relationship in the long run to produce what you stated. 
 
Self-Esteem leads one to Capitalism as it is the social application of personal action.  If one is confident in oneself you will want to be independent and free to act on your ideas.  Communism or any other group-ism like the modern Welfare State is born of lack of confidence (in people and existence), therefor you're willing to loose independence in the form of security from the group.  It is security theater on a much larger scale.  Self Esteem leads to independence and lack of it leads to dependence. 
 
From there they just feed each other in a circle of growth or decline respectively.
 
Or to put it another way, the Emo culture makes perfect sense in a Welfare State that finds ways to hate itself. 
 
I hope that helps you get started 

As a big fan of music I can tell you after too many hours of driving on the road and chewing on music as a value, I can say that music projects the emotions of the writer as well as the listener independently.  The artist expresses ideas and the listener does another.  Many times the great artists actually bring you into their world, for example Frank Sinatra had the ability to make you feel what he was feeling. 
 
But other times the listener sees their ideas or emotions.  As Dee Snider put it bluntly to the Senate Committee in the 80's, "I wrote a song about fear of surgery and that is what I hear.  Mrs. Gore went looking for S&M so she found it." 
 
I am a hard rock and heavy metal fan, for example.  Some people hear thrash and think it is anger or noise. I hear the sound of the industrial revolution and a "Who is going to stop me?" vision that makes we want to win.  To each his own as it reflects your values. 

As a big fan of music I can tell you after too many hours of driving on the road and chewing on music as a value, I can say that music projects the emotions of the writer as well as the listener independently.  The artist expresses ideas and the listener does another.  Many times the great artists actually bring you into their world, for example Frank Sinatra had the ability to make you feel what he was feeling. 
 
But other times the listener sees their ideas or emotions.  As Dee Snider put it bluntly to the Senate Committee in the 80's, "I wrote a song about fear of surgery and that is what I hear.  Mrs. Gore went looking for S&M so she found it." 
 
I am a hard rock and heavy metal fan, for example.  Some people hear thrash and think it is anger or noise. I hear the sound of the industrial revolution and a "Who is going to stop me?" vision that makes we want to win.  To each his own as it reflects your values. 

You know, I had actually forgo this thread when writing that.  
 
Goes to show the power of integrated thinking!
 
And thank you.  

Jon, the law of causality is generally considered a metaphysical principle. The reference in Galt's speech, as you have used it, does not hold much water when you consider it against The Property Status Of Airwaves in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
A notable example of the proper method of establishing private ownership from scratch, in a previously ownerless area, is the Homestead Act of 1862, by which the government opened the western frontier for settlement and turned "public land" over to private owners. The government offered a 160-acre farm to any adult citizen who would settle on it and cultivate it for five years, after which it would become his property.  Although that land was originally regarded, in law, as "public property," the method of its allocation, in/act, followed the proper principle (in /act, but not in explicit ideological intention). The citizens did not have to pay the government as if it were an owner; ownership began with them, and they earned it by the method which is the source and root of the concept of "property": by working on unused material resources, by turning a wilderness into a civilized settlement. Thus, the government, in this case, was acting not as the owner but as the custodian of ownerless resources who defines objectively impartial rules by which potential owners may acquire them.
 
By this method, an individual could have headed out west and at age 20, work 160 acres, for 5 years, at age 25, work another 160 acres for 5 years, etc. These 160 acre tracts would have met the condition of what Miss Rand considered the proper method of establishing private ownership from scratch.
 
Applying the law of causality to man one can derive that man is an entity that can cause productive actions. Reasoning is another action that can be caused by the entity, man. The law of causality being the source of property rights is a recognition of man as an entity, and has to flow from the identification of man's nature as a rational animal, with further identifications of what is right along each step of the way.
 
Miss Rand wrote Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal after Atlas Shrugged. In "What Is Capitalism" she phrases the issue of property rights somewhat differently:
I shall remind you that "rights" are a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context, that they are derived from man's nature as a rational being and represent a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival. I shall remind you also that the right to life is the source of all rights, including the right to property.

In regard to political economy, this last requires special emphasis: man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life. Without property rights, no other rights can be practiced.
 
You would need to go back to the beginning of this article to discover that prior to America, and the implementation of individual rights, all property belonged to the king, held by the king's permission, and could be revoked at the king's pleasure at any time.

Property Rights Part 2 – The Political Consequence
 
It is the necessity of man being able to act upon his ideas that necessitates the concept of rights.  Rights are a right to action.  Ethics is the answer to the questions regarding how a man interacts with nature.  When we put two men together the issue becomes how men interact with each other.  From here we come to the concept of politics as to apply ethics to how a group of men interacts.  Man alone needs ethics, but he does not need politics.  A group of men will find the need to apply ethics into defined principles to act is guides for interacting together.  It is in man’s rational self-interest to do this otherwise he would be required to exponentially dedicate more of his time from work that benefits his life to work dedicated to protecting his life.  This could be protecting himself or settling agreements with others.
 
This gives rise to the science of politics and defining a moral system of governance defined as Capitalism.  A full discussion of the Objectivist position on Capitalism is beyond this presentation so I will refer the reader to Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand for the full chain of proof.  What is important for this presentation is that man agrees to work together and imbues a government with moral principles that protect his rights, which are rights to action, and only uses its monopoly on force to protect man’s rights and settle disputes. 
 
Government protects man’s rights, not dictate them. 
 
As discussed under the first part, the ethical reason for man’s ownership of property is that it is a metaphysical requirement of man’s nature to use reason and act upon nature to create his means of survival.  The less man is the rational animal the more he becomes just an animal.  The physical representation of his mind is when he acts to use nature for his purpose.  Property is the consequence.  Without property acting as for man’s physical manifestation of his values he regresses like the other animals that survive without the concept of property.
 
Property Rights are enshrined in a moral society precisely because such a society realizes that for man to live qua man they are a requirement.   In is not in man’s interest to form a government that restricts his ability live as a man no more than if a bird could think would it form a society that put terms on the use of its wings.  Such a thing would be outrageous to the bird as sit is to men who realize that this is the same action as putting a hand between thought and action. 
 
Human history is a process of setting man free of other men and to the extent societies have protected man’s ability to dispose of his property and himself, those cultures have grown.  To the extent that societies have allowed one man to impose on another and restricted man’s ability to dispose of his property or self, they have slowed, stunted, and regressed.  This is a simple historical application of the ethical idea that a man is free by his nature in mind and body, and that a society that embrace the mind-body dichotomy stunts itself. 
 
Why a man holds property a value is his judgement.  By the definition above a society that tells a man otherwise is not treating him as a man, but an animal and attempting to rule him.  Human history is filled with societies where one man’s judgement is nullified in thought if not in action by those who claim their judgement is superior, and the results are nothing but predictable.  

Property Rights Part 1 – An Ethical Foundation
 
For the purpose of this discussion it needs to be stated that the following contexts are a given and assumed for the discussion. 
 
1.       Metaphysics – Reality is real, man has consciousness that perceives reality, and reality has an identity.
2.       Man has free will and uses it to focus his consciousness in reality and identify it
3.       Epistemology - Man uses reason, a process of non-contradictory identification to identify facts of reality and integrate them into concepts.  Thus large amounts of data become practical and usable on a day to day basis for living and building more advanced knowledge. 
4.       Knowledge is Objective:  Concrete facts are integrated to abstract ideas and abstract ideas are proven in reality. 
 
Politics is not the first question as politics is simply a social application of ethics, or ethics applied to how humans deal with each other.  Ethics is the first question and political questions are derived from there and much later in the thinking process.
 
When dealing with ethics, the first question is “Why we have ethics?”  We have ethics due to the nature of man.  Man has free will, so he always faces alternatives and choices.  But which choice is right?  This is determined by the same epistemological method we form concepts, taking vast amounts of data and integrating them into our known knowledge.  Principles are in effect very complex concepts that reduce vast amounts of data into a fact we know to be demonstrated true and can predict the probable outcome of an action.  Principles allow us to predict the future of an action.
 
Thus, we do not need to start each day going through the long arduous process to figure out if it is a good idea to have a job.  We know as a matter of principle that if we want to eat we need to do something about it.   
 
Property is an aspect of man’s need to be productive and do something about the fundamental choice to live.  Animals have tools they use to survive, like speed, flight, or superior eye sight.  Humans have the faculty of reason and it is this they use to survive.  If man does not use his mind he reduces himself to the state of the other animals and actually he will be on a lower level since he will not be able to maintain himself, much in the same way if a bird was suicidal enough to decide to not use its wings.
 
Man uses his mind to change his environment, whether it is the creation of tools or the cultivation of land.  To think is man’s unique tool to survive but an idea is just a thought unless given form.  Property is the consequence of an idea given form.  This is also why Intellectual Property is a right, if not then you have cut a man’s mind off from his actions since both are required to live in reality.  A mind without acting is a ghost while a body without thought is a zombie, which explains a lot about the popularity of zombies. 
 
Man’s history is a process of developing better ideas and turning those ideas into something useful.  He hunts better when he develops weapons.  He eats better when he learns to farm the land.  He farms the land better when develops tools to farm.  He develops more food when he develops away to preserve food or save stock for future use.  He specializes when he develops tools to move the stock he saved to other like-minded people. Etc, etc, etc, until one day he buys something in France with a piece of plastic and the value is deducted from his savings half a world away… instantly. 
 
Man has to think if he wants to live, then he has to act in order to do something with those ideas.  Action is necessary for man to live and it’s his actions that bring these virtues into reality.  The more he does this the more he improves his life.  The more he improves his life the further he reaches to live by the fullest form of the term and that is thrive and achieve happiness, happiness being the ultimate goal.  Happiness is the purpose of ethics, necessary for man as a creature of volitional consciousness, but for the purpose of this discussion is not covered in further detail outside to state if man wants to achieve happiness he needs to do something about it. 
 
Property is the consequence of man taking his ideas and acting upon nature to bring those ideas into reality.  Property is man’s mind and values given form.  What that form is going to be is up to man based on his values and decisions.  It has to be his individual values and decisions or ultimately they are not his values and decisions - He is not dictating his life but his life is being dictated to him. 
 
Property in this case is the physical expression of values given form so an individual can thrive by his own choice as a man.
Property can be any physical form.  Early in man’s existence is was tools to help survival.  Later it was tools to advance his life.  It was land to be developed or animals to be eaten or provide power/transportation.  A man who did not own his spear or the land he tilled was not in control of his life.  He was a serf and mankind lost a Millennium to this in practice.
 
A curious development in the process was that property also became not a tool for action NOW but a tool for action LATER.  Man could store value for the future.  A hunter could save his kill for tomorrow and a farmer could save his stock for next season.  Early man as hunter-gatherer had to consume his work today as his survival depended upon it, much like most animals.  But as man evolved into a human greater than the animals his ability to thrive was goal directed by his ability to think and save work one day to be consumed at a later day, thus saving time and being able to plan and specialize.  Savings is unconsumed work saved for the future, once a few fur skins and a good harvest and lauded as a virtue is today seen in investments and profits which is now seen as a vice – Exposing the true ethical violation of those who damn such primal life giving activities. 
 
Eventually this store of value would give rise to a need for a more transferable and durable form of exchange, eventually barter property would become money.  This does not change the fact man still stored value in property.  As civilization advances and free exchange is allowed, stores of value become complex, subjective, and even abstract at times.  Man today is just as likely to have savings accounts, gold bars, expensive pictures, land, small fractions of corporations, or even a bit coin in virtual reality. 
Land is the subject, and once man had to use land as if his life depended upon it, because it did depend on it.  The closer we come to a Bronze Age level culture we see the absolute need to farm, gather, or at minimum contain livestock.  As man advances however his need to act and consume daily like his Bronze Age brethren falls to the side as he can act in one part of his life and save/enjoy in other parts of his life.  Property had to be used; today it can simply hold values until one is willing to use it or trade it away.  Such is the benefit of living above the hunter-gatherer stage and not having to use it or lose it. 
 
Land, like any property, is simply man’s work given value in physical form for the benefit of his life.  Like a lump of iron it may have pre-existed before man but it is man that gives it value, whether he uses it or not.  Objects hold no intrinsic value but require a valuer to deem them a value.  Only man makes an object valuable, or even useful.  For Land, man had to work to earn the values that allow him to trade for it, and in the end as a representation of his values given form through work, it is his to dispose of as he sees fit.  How or why is his judgement.  It can hold value now or be held as value for later.  If not then the ethical connection between mind and body, thought and action is severed and values are determined intrinsically by inhuman means to inhuman ends.  

I have conservative and liberal friends, even religious or socialists which are two philosophies I take to task. 
 
You can be friends with anyone as long as they are of value to you, and you to them.  In this case our mutual interests lie elsewhere.  

Thinking and responding in principle because I refuse to accept the wrong premise and argue from that strand point... Is lazy?  
 
That is a new smear tactic to me.  
 
Fascinating.  

This argument is going in circles because we are skirting the real issue - The egalitarian premise that we didn't start out on equal footing so it was never free/fair/equal so we cannot have free property rights now. Specializing it into subcategories doesn't evade the premise.  
 
This is the classic "We didn't start free/fair/equal so we cannot be free now".  I get this a lot on property, income, and even "social justice" when I debate my liberal friends. Except I no longer debate them and just tell them to Google the definition of "Statue of Limitations".  
 
Telling me that once upon a time hundreds/thousands of years ago it was un-owned and someone committed a crime and took it, if it was a crime, still matters thousands of years later today is ridiculous.  Original Sin is not a valid concept. 
 
Telling me that if I took that land and built a farm or whatever makes it into OK property is also ridiculous.  I would also be scared of the China styled over-development that would cause as a consequence as people rushed to build.  Conditional property is also not a valid concept since man's life requires property to live then conditional property would equate to conditional life.
 
If the property was actually stolen recently (Russia invade Ukraine/EPA takes land to protect some dirty water) then I  agree that it is an issue but by definition if that is happening we are not discussing property rights since we are not discussing a free society. We are in the context of a mixed/controlled society. There IS problems there but it is not one of property rights and free trade.  It's the controls and special interest groups benefiting at the expense of  others.  
 
If anything, if you really, really, want it to be fair you should advocate land as property and a free society because it will enter the ownership cycle and will be exchanged for free and voluntary agreement.  Then any claims to the ancient past are buried with the rest of history for freedom and thriving now.  Each generation will deal with each other in equal terms instead of a never ending cycle of chains to the past.