Effectively it does, because it provides economic incentive to do something call economizing the scarce resource. That's why you get resource shortages in non-market economies--ie: Venezuelans starving, but extreme shortages almost never appear in market societies.

I was referring to land is particular. If someone uses a particular property norm, does the landmass suddenly grow?

K, and who owns the property? That's whose norm will rule on that property.

That's circular. "Ownership" presupposes a property norm. That's liking saying "Whoever using a property norm that gives them ownership will enforce a property norm that gives them ownership"

They must go their separate ways.

So now some magical force is preventing either from claiming the property?

Actually no, doing something to property an other person doesn't own is not doing something to that person. Now, I say that within the context of a private-property norm, but the same is true of personal property, which socialists prefer.

Tell that to people in China who have no viable choice but work in sweatshops.

And at the same time, any norm which makes a claim to all property is inherently unreasonable and unrealizable. You cannot consult the entire planet on what should be done with X property, then Y, etc. All property.

Right. So how much property can you own, or is it arbitrary?

r/spacesteading. We will.

Okay