Anyone who is against this &quot;privatization of public lands to extract wealth&quot; can you explain what is different about this than, say, Tesla&#x27;s gigafactory or your family home, or Giant Stadium, or literally every other piece of property in the world?<p>I don&#x27;t understand how someone could be against this kind of thing and yet feel that they are entitled to their quarter acre lot just because they were able to make a deal with someone who made a deal with someone who murdered the native people who are arguably the only legitimate inheritors of the land.<p>The conclusion I&#x27;ve come to is that no land deed has any moral claim, and they should all be invalidated. Other people who are open proponents of manifest destiny and acknowledge that it&#x27;s essentially just a violent power struggle and you protect your land with whatever means you have... these days being in good standing with the police force and other people with weapons... That also seems like an internally consistent position.<p>But people who think one piece of land can be owned by a person but another one can&#x27;t... I just don&#x27;t get it. How does that make sense in your head? Is it just a statute of limitations thing?