Animal can fight & need to protect territory (if territorial animal) but it doesn't own it, when it dies that land is used by other animals.
Animal also needs to defend its territory and it can only do so up to a limit, if territory gets too large, it can't be defended by the animal so easy, so there is natural limit there
The limit is irrelevant. It is still the animals territory, and the animal will kill to defend it. So there you go. Natural property.
Limit is very relevant, because its NATURAL LIMIT which again, human's don't "obey" one person having a whole continent is not fucking normal... do you get it yet?
No one person has a continent. Also, who are you to decide it isn't natural?
SILENTSAM.... YOU ARE DUMB AS A FUCK... PLEASE.... STOP REPLYING TO ME AND JUST GO FUCK YOURSELF
If you want an echo-chamber, then Memo is not the right place for you
Quit saying so many incorrect things then. Especially since obvious mistakes.
The British Monarchy colonized Australian continent you stupid fuck... and more than that... is that good enough proof that you are so fucking stupid? Who am I to decide? Who are you?
The British empire was not a single person. Is your mistake obvious yet?
Also, once again, when that animal dies, territory is not inherited or still owned by it. Do you get it yet?
Nothing wrong with inheritance at all. It is actually a good thing.
Again wrong. This is the very thing that allows people who are born into rich families who got rich from exploitation to not having to work at all and continue to exploit others.
Inheritance is earned and deserved. A right worth killing over.
Humans are only species where some human can own whole continent (like the fucking British Monarchy for example), because they exploited & killed other people & stole territories.
