How is your claim to owning a building that you live in any less arbitrary than my claim to owning a building which I rent out, and why would your claim require any less arbitration and enforcement than mine?

Because mine is based on hard restrictions of reality. Not two humans can occupy the same space or use the same productive means.

Q.E.D.

You're not alone in advocating a "time out" on claims to abandoned property. No "propertarian", as you call us, would drag you to court over picking a dropped coin off of the sidewalk, or over restoring a long-abandoned house to usefulness and claiming it for your own. The issue seems to have more to do with absentee ownership, and with exactly how long the claim may be left without this condition fulfilled before it expires. Again: I do not understand in the slightest why your norm is less arbitrary than mine, or has any fewer grey areas wherein arbitration is required.

Greed is a useless word. Its meaning is solely to express disapproval for the chosen ends of an actor. It is beneath the purview of civilized discussion. But shortsightedness is a meaningful and useful concept, relating to time preference, and one worth examining in relation to property norms.

I don't see how possession-based property norms discourage shortsightedness in comparison to homesteading and contract-based property norms. If absentee-owned capital goods can be claimed by anyone off of the street after a set amount of time, then would that not incentivize people to redirect their productive efforts towards consumer's goods, ceteris paribus? Specialization in the production of capital goods would be greatly discouraged – some perhaps rendered impossible altogether, depending on the precise terms of society's property norms.

A company can ask any price it wants for cars, from ten dollars to ten million dollars. But it will only get the money if the money exists. Where did the money come from?

An auto worker can demand any salary, from ten dollars per hour to ten million dollars per hour. But he will only get the money if the money exists. Where did the money come from?

The answer, of course, is that someone printed it [a better word for inflation is dilution].

If the supply of money had not changed, then the only way for one person to have more money would be for someone else to have less. When one worker's wages went up, another worker's wages would have to go down. When one business's prices went up, another business's prices would have to go down. The value of your money would not change.

The only way for all wages and prices to go up is for someone to print money. If the money is not being printed, then each rise in a wage or price would have to be matched by a fall in some other wage or price.

For instance, if the amount of money does not change, and the price of oil rises, then the prices of comic books, food, clothes, and other items must fall. That's because people are using more money to buy oil, so they have less money left over to buy other things.

If someone demands money faster than it is created, he simply won't get it. No one will have it to give to him. That's why workers aren't demanding ten million dollars per hour and the auto manufacturer isn't demanding ten million dollars per car. That much money doesn't exist. Yet."

“The efficiency of British agriculture, and of the economy in general, was further enhanced by the large number of land enclosures in the latter half of the eighteenth century – Parliament approved of some 3,000 Enclosure Acts between 1750 and 1816 alone. Enclosure was a systematic privatization in which open fields and common areas were fenced and divided among those who had enjoyed either communal or private rights to them. Problems of free riding and of “externalities” were much reduced. Animals that had been grazed on common fields often transmitted diseases to one another, for example. “The advantages of enclosed and compact farms under one man’s sole control, over the dispersed and fragmented holdings in common fields were widely appreciated,” the economist historian G. E. Mingay has written. “…[It resulted in] a rapid conversion to the conditions necessary for more efficient farming.”

Here indeed was a moment in English history when the law was changed in response to the promptings of efficiency. Communal rights are ill-defined. Enclosure therefore “economized” agriculture. Enclosure also increased the incentive to invest in new farming methods, for the returns would go to those who made the investments. Expenditures on draining and experiments in crop varieties and animal breeding greatly increased. They added up to an Agricultural Revolution that was not entirely separate from the Industrial Revolution as more generally understood.”