[Merge: Rights, Property]

To supply some context.

Same answer as before, with all of the same qualifiers.

What is your point?  Are you trying to get me to commit to a position that you think can be twisted to attack Objectivism?

If you mean, I'm I trying to discover if some Objectivists are hypocritical, then the answer is yes. Or is that not open to debate?

[Merge: Rights, Property]

It belongs to Wiess, assuming they acquired it properly in the first place, and assuming they were, in fact, forced to leave because of threats by the government, and assuming they made an effort to reclaim it in a reasonable period of time after the threats abated and assuming they did nothing overt to indicate a permanent abandonment of the property.

Why so many qualifications? Okay, lets say they went back a few years later, at a point a which they felt more confortable trying to reclaim their land. Lets also say the government was not behind their claim but for the Schwarzeneggers? Lets also say they've repeatedly tried to regain possession of their property, but have been legally unsuccessful in the German courts. And what constitutes "permanent abandonment"?

[Merge: Rights, Property]

Okay, lets say that the family of Mr. Wiess abandoned their property in Germany during the 1930s because they were afraid for their safety under the Third Reich. Sortly after the war, some other family is living in their family's old house and claim ownership of all their land. The State stands behind the current owners (lets call them the Schwarzeneggers). Who does the land now belong too?

Thanks.