[aminok]

>And how exactly do they determine that?

You want me to explain the entire body of common law? What is the point of this line of questioning? Are you trying to demonstrate that everything is subjective, and thus that justice doesn't exist in any objective sense, meaning it's okay for you to use violence against peaceful people to force them to act charitably?

>What happens when people disagree about ownership?

The same thing that happens now when people disagree with a legal ruling. What are you expecting me to offer as an alternative? Utopia? Perfect justice?

>So it's okay to ignore property rights if enforcing them would cause harm?

When did I say it's okay to ignore property rights? I said it's okay to not physically resist the legal ruling, given it will lead to civil strife, without providing the desired security of private property (given government is nearly impossible to resist by force).

>And what will this achieve? What mechanism is there for government to recognise and rectify its mistake?

I'm not talking about rectifying mistakes in specific rulings. I'm talking about rectifying mistakes in larger policy.

I'm talking about persuading society to abandon principles that legitimize robbing people of their essential human rights, like their private property and privacy rights, in the name of helping the poor, or achieving some other social objective.

I believe that most people share a common understanding of what legitimate property rights are, and share a belief that forcing someone to surrender their private property rights is wrong, and I believe that is is only the layers of ideological indoctrination that people are subjected to, and the obfuscating complexity of modern societies, that leads them to support government policy that endorses violating people's rights.

Consequently I believe explaining the injustice of said policies will lead to people dropping their support for the policies, and adopting positions that are in my opinion more just.

>As opposed to two wolves agreeing that they own the grass, and enforcing that until the sheep dies

This is not about a plot of land, that was there from before man's ascent. This is about two people engaging in a private trade, and a third party claiming ownership over a share of the movable property traded, on account of some contrived ideology that attempts to rationalize theft.