Of course, adverse possession presumes that land ought to be made "useful." (Haven't thought yet about how these critiques of real property theory map to IP.)
Much of real property theory arose from the assumption that the government should recognize and encourage the "highest and best use" of real property. Traditionally, the highest and best use of land is the use that can most profit from the land's resources; often mining, grazing, farming, logging.
This is problematic.
- This view justifies colonization, and taking land from original inhabitants who don't use the land to extract resource value.
- This view does not recognize preservation of an ecosystem as a valuable use.
- This view does not account for externalities from use of the land's resources.
I think it's worth noting that you can calculate an estimate of the externalities and remove that from the profit to achieve a more balanced justification. Though unfortunately, unless you counted the loss of culture as an externality then you could still trivially justify the removal of land from those less productive/ technologically advanced than you.
Furthermore, even though I'm not personally supportive of the removal of land at the individual's loss I do have to ask if the removal could account for a net gain overall; improving many people's lives. Perhaps profit isn't the best measure of improvement to the collective but it is at least indicative.
Much of real property theory arose from the assumption that the government should recognize and encourage the "highest and best use" of real property. Traditionally, the highest and best use of land is the use that can most profit from the land's resources; often mining, grazing, farming, logging.
This is problematic.
- This view justifies colonization, and taking land from original inhabitants who don't use the land to extract resource value.
- This view does not recognize preservation of an ecosystem as a valuable use.
- This view does not account for externalities from use of the land's resources.