Subjective appraisal seems to be inescapable. There’s no objective line between stepping foot on a patch of land, occupying it seasonally, and enclosing it with a permanent fence.

David A. Freedman touches on this inescapable subjectivity towards the end of “The Machinery of Freedom”. I don’t have the text in front of me, but the gist is that it’s subjective what one considers trespass. Somewhere between a single photon of light reflecting into one’s eyes and outright breaking and entering. There’s no objective standard.

But in any case I’d re-raise the question of what alternative is better? Suppose we reject Rothbard’s framing, that the thief’s heirs are homesteaders if all the victims’ heirs cannot be found. What ought to happen?

This is not a rhetorical question. What alternative framework would you recommend to solve the dilemma of historical theft in the present, where the victims’ heirs cannot be identified or don’t exist?