ABSTRACT
The argument from first occupation, then, does not succeed in giving a general justification of property rights. First occupancy cannot justify title to property unless the object occupied is unowned; occupation is in some relevant sense actual as opposed to intentional; the concept of actual occupation defines with reasonable clarity how much one can occupy; the occupier claims no more than a share as defined b. The first requirement comes simply from the fact that if the thing is already owned by someone, mere occupation will not change that fact, and presumably first occupation is by definition impossible. The second requirement is necessary to avoid making the concept of occupation altogether absurd and self-defeating. The third and fourth requirements arise, not because one needs, in justice, to put a limit on what a person can rightfully appropriate in this way.
